Tampa City Council
Thursday, June 2, 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]
09:04:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Tampa City Council is now in order.
The chair yields to Councilman Harry Cohen.
09:04:46 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, everyone.
It's my pleasure this morning to welcome Rabbi Josh
Hearshen, from my actual congregation Rodeph Sholom where I
belong on Bayshore Boulevard.
It is the oldest conservative synagogue in Hillsborough
County, and we welcome Rabbi Hearshen this morning to for
the invocation.
We will rise for that as well as the pledge of allegiance.
09:05:14 >> Thank you, Councilman Cohen.
In just about nine days the Jewish people will celebrate the
holiday of Shavuot, a holiday that did not have a great PR
person working for it. Very few people know about it. But
it's a sacred holiday, nevertheless.
It's a holiday when we celebrate the giving of the Ten
Commandments, giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai.
Law is a sacred, sacred thing.
Law is given because God loves us and because we love each
other.
When god gave those ten commandments at Sinai, the world was
changed, reality was shifting, we suddenly had order, we
suddenly had purpose.
What law really does for our world is it gives us the
ability to see the other.
It gives us the ability to look at one another and to live
together.
It gives us the ability to form society.
It gives us the ability to be living side by side.
May God bless all of us to be receive the other in our mix.
May God bless all of us to see the sanctity of the rule of
law and to be find order and purpose in this often chaotic
world.
en.
[ Pledge of Allegiance ]
09:07:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Roll call.
09:07:06 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Present.
09:07:09 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
09:07:13 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Here.
09:07:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
Before we go to the approval of the agenda, Mr. Reddick is
not going to be able to be here today for our regular
meeting, and Mr. Miranda is running late from a scheduled
meeting over at the county commission and he should be back
here in about 25 minutes.
Okay, the agenda has been looked at.
A motion to approve that addendum to the agenda.
09:07:41 >> So moved.
09:07:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Cohen.
Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Cohen, I think you are going to go in a little bit
different order from this from our agenda.
Do we have the commendation?
Okay, we will then go to item number 1.
09:08:21 >>HARRY COHEN:
I am going to warn you, I just got new
glasses.
I have been known to mix up some words lately.
But in recognition of your 35 years of dedicated service to
the City of Tampa and its citizens, you may have retired but
your impact on this city will continue to be realized long
after you are no longer at your desk.
Thank you very much on behalf of our city for your 35 years
of service.
And I know there are lots of people here today from the
accounting department who want to wish you well and
celebrate this milestone with you.
09:08:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Cohen, I know it was hard to read but
her name is Christine.
09:09:05 >> Christine Jackson.
That's the only thing in bold.
(Laughter)
[ Applause ]
09:09:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Jackson, you don't get off that easily.
Please come up and say a few words, if you don't mind.
Even if it's just thank you.
We don't mind.
You can even thank the people that you are going to say
good-bye to.
09:09:35 >> Thank you.
I want to thank everybody, for me working here in 35 years.
I can't believe the time went so fast but it did.
And missing a lot of you right now.
Leading your life but still missing out on my friends.
I am missing working for the city, missing the activities of
downtown.
I want to thank you all for putting up with me for 35
glorious years.
[ Applause ]
09:10:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, Ms. Jackson.
I'm sorry to put you on the spot but I always feel it's
important even though when you are getting a commendation we
are going to pay you one last collect for sure and hopefully
that check will clear and -- (Laughter)
I want to make sure. We are very happy for the time you
gave to us and we hope that the next 35 years you have not
with us is going to be as enjoyable as the other 35 years.
Thank you so much.
Thank you for your service.
All right.
Next on the agenda is a commendation to the American Heart
Association.
They are also running late.
I think they are at the same meeting as Mr. Miranda.
So we will go to the third item which is the commendation,
Mr. Maniscalco, if you could handle that, please.
09:11:05 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Thank you very much, council.
This is about gun rights, about gun violence in America, gun
violence awareness.
What's been going on in this country and this world, it's
unbelievable.
I remember being a freshman in high school and Columbine
happened.
The first time a school shooting of that magnitude.
And I'm thinking, I thought we settled our differences on
the playground and in the parking lot, and get sent to the
principal's office.
Now you take a gun to school and shoot people that you may
not like or whatever the reason is.
Just yesterday, UCLA, a professor was murdered by a student,
under investigation, but, you know, it seems that it's so
common in the news, every day, almost every day it's
something new.
And I am presenting this commendation on behalf of Tampa
City Council for gun action.
It's not that they don't support the second amendment.
They do. But they support common sense when it comes to
this kind of violence which I think needs to be addressed
and I think is really out of control.
Tampa City Council is pleased to bestow this presentation on
moms demand gun action and congratulate you on the gun
violence awareness initiative and to recognize today June
2nd, 2016 as gun violence awareness day.
Moms demand action support the second amendment, yes, but
believe common sense solutions will help decrease the
escalating epidemic of gun violence.
We are proud of all that will you accomplished in bringing
gun safety.
We look forward to continuously success and mobilization,
and it's Tampa City Council's honor to present with you this
commendation on the second day of June 2016.
[ Applause ]
09:13:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If you could, before you leave, if you would
tell us a little about your organization it would be very
nice.
How people out there can get in touch with you.
Just state your name.
09:13:28 >> My name is Catherine Robinson, and like Councilman said,
we are a volunteer group dedicated to the idea that we can
have meaningful discussion, solve the problem of guns, gun
violence in this country, not only in this city but around
the country.
So today we wear orange.
That's the color that hunters wear when they don't want to
be shot.
And so if you go online, all over the country people are
wearing orange to bring a spotlight to this issue.
And like I said, some discussion and some solutions.
Thank you so much.
09:14:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Okay, we are come back to the American Heart Association
commendation once they are here.
We will go on to public comment.
Public comment is for those items on the agenda that are
not -- that are not set for public hearing.
The items that set for public hearing are items number 43
through 58.
So if you are here to speak on any item on the agenda, you
may except for those items that set for public hearing.
Okay.
Excuse me, 59 is what it's through.
43 to 59.
You cannot speak at this time.
Any other item besides that you may.
Please comb forward.
State your name when you do.
09:14:56 >> Mike Higginson, greater association of realtors.
I am here to comment on item 58 which is about the program
that you all recall we have been working on this for a
couple of years, and glad to report that the ordinance
coming before you is pretty much in keeping with what the
committee that you helped form has been working on for some
time, and we appreciate that work through all this.
The only caveat we have got is the devil is in the details
and we know there are actual procedures and some details yet
to be worked out on hopefully we'll very well a lot less
trouble with code violations.
Thank you.
09:15:49 >> Ron Rampolla.
I'm on the committee.
We started this committee actually about 12 years ago.
And we were making a lot of progress and approve what we
have done so far in concept and we have a lot of work to do
on the details.
But I think we are all on the same page.
Thank you.
09:16:07 >> Mark Hamburg.
I'm also on the same committee as Mr. Rampolla.
I think actually more than 12 years, I think our committee
has been active for some 20 years, and has been a very
consistent group, Tampa Board of Realtors and other business
owners, concerned business owners.
We appreciate the fact that the city has worked hard,
hammered out a plan.
We look forward to the final work product.
And I apologize that we came up in the public comment
section.
I didn't realize.
I appreciate you doing it.
Thank you.
09:16:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
09:16:56 >> My first City Council meeting so I hope I do this right.
I'm the president of the Hillsborough high school rowing
club.
My name is Javier Cuevas.
And we are being displaced from Riverfront Park because of
renovations and we identified Rivercrest Park as a future
site at least temporarily for our team.
And this is a great opportunity for us to bring us a lot
closer to the school so we won't have the issues that high
school kids having to drive downtown and having to drive
around in rush hour.
The principal has been very supportive.
The south Seminole Heights Civic Association voted 23-0 to
support it.
And it fits nicely with our goals to reach out to our
community to give opportunity to inner city kids to become
involved in rowing programs.
So we really hope that you are supportive of this now and
hopefully as for long-term.
Thank you.
09:18:01 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Sir, I'm glad to see you here H.I used
to row for Tampa Catholic high school back in the day.
And I appreciate everything that involves, the river and the
use of all that.
It's a great sport that people don't recognize enough.
09:18:19 >> We are going to be right across the water from Tampa
Catholic practically, and we are bringing together a lot of
things, high school -- Hillsborough high school rowing club
and Berkeley.
09:18:35 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Berkeley would come to Tampa and meet
with us, great place to meet girls.
09:18:40 >> It has the highest rated college of any sport and we
think it will be great for the kids to have this
opportunity.
09:18:48 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
As everyone knows, my legislative aide's
daughter is a Ph.D. rowing coach at Michigan and the other
one is a masters rowing coach at Clemson.
What I want to say is, yes, the scholarships are there.
And the club, is there a charge to the students?
09:19:13 >> Yes.
So it costs about $2,000 a year to be part of a club.
So the way that Hillsborough County public schools sponsors
teams to sponsor a rowing club for the high school, they
would not receive county money.
So what we are doing is fundraising and right now we have
seven scholarships.
That's about a quarter of our team is on full scholarships.
So we raised about 14,000 to be able to support those
individuals.
And our goal is to actually have at least half the team on
scholarship so we can don't grow.
We are going to start working with the after-school program,
the all-stars, and those kids, most of them will need
scholarships, and we are developing now a booster club to
help fundraising that will be needed to get there.
Our goal is to really reach out to those kids that can't
afford it because those will have the most opportunity.
09:20:09 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I'm surprised that the county isn't
pitching in somehow to the school, because the river is so
important to our county, to our city, to our area.
It is a cultural asset.
And we want to enhance the river.
Therefore, rowing is a natural way of bringing in inner city
kids into, again, this hey scholarship rewards that are
available through rowing, and it's a team effort, but I
would love to see that.
What I would like to ask, we have item 7 maybe when it comes
to that, I would like to make a motion that we send a letter
to the school board.
Asking for that support and how that can be accomplished.
09:20:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If you want to make that motion now.
09:20:58 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I will do it now.
09:21:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mrs. Capin.
Second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
09:21:05 >>HARRY COHEN:
I would like to add a comment before you
made the motion.
It's the best exercise there is.
It is seriously the sport that allows you to condition your
entire body.
And given our concern for people's health and obesity, this
is something that we really ought to be promoting.
09:21:24 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.
So there you go.
09:21:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion from Mrs. Capin, second from Mr.
Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Thank you for what you do for our students.
09:21:35 >> Interestingly, true to form you take your votes before
the public comment.
Okay.
In that regard, item 2, you are talking about the health
association.
I talked last week actually about two weeks ago about a
particular yogurt that's very heavy in saturated fat and
saturated fats continue to be the root of a lot of problems.
It's actually been resolved a little bit, but stearic acid
and palmitic acid. Palmitic acid seems bad. Stearic acid
seems good.
Unsaturated fats are almost -- they are stearic, oleic acid,
and the thing is that you have to read the labels, because
you have this yogurt that's essentially made a claim,
because not all of them are that bad.
For instance, Publix makes a good yogurt that only has one
gram of fat.
It has six and a half teaspoons of sugar in this tiny cup.
Anyway, just so you know, read the labels, because the
labels tell you a lot
Okay with, respect to what was just spoken about, I don't
think a rowing facility is right for that neighborhood and
it costs a lot of money.
$35 million at the root of a transportation system, but when
I spoke against it, the two ladies were away, and of course
Mr. Miranda is still away in theory.
He represents West Tampa.
But the thing of it is, University of Tampa had something
for adults.
The question is, do these kids swim?
And the thing is, you are going to see huge lawsuits.
Those things tip over sometimes and if the people don't
swim, when I was at the Baltimore rowing club there were
always people that were on edge.
And wondered why it was.
Most of them couldn't swim.
They never should have been out there.
So anyway, that's a big thing that goes about with it.
Maybe instead of running for governor or something he should
run for Hollywood to play an Irish politician.
The movie -- one of the guys was the brother of the
criminal.
So much for brothers in law.
Okay, about whiffle golf, and I finally got around there to
looking up my friend bill Cohen E.was a classmate at
Stanford and he was very much an advocate of this and his
fellow students would pick up on it.
It only needs about ten acres for a little golf course.
And that would be a very appropriate thing, a Tiger Woods
golf course.
You could find him on linked-in on the Internet because he
called, he remembers days with whiffle golf.
(Bell sounds).
09:24:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
09:24:47 >> And he would probably be really enthusiastic about that.
09:24:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Next, please.
09:25:15 >> I reside in Tampa which is now known as TA-MT.
Anyhow, I understand in this country it's a two way road
that we are operating under.
Citizens operating under one law and my law is different
than your law.
Now he was talking about true law.
True law in this country, establish true justice in this
country, and it's a two-court system in this country.
We understand that this court system is operating illegally,
and we understand that everything -- talk about $35 million.
Putting you guys into more debt instead of freeing us from
the debt.
Overcharging people for things like Hart operations, bus
fares paid for, so still being charged for bus passes and
then their rights are being violated.
People violating left and right, and sovereign citizens, you
know, we need to set Tampa up the right way.
Because the way for the whole world, we are going to get
this done right.
And I stand here, you know, I understand -- I don't agree
with most of them anyhow.
I stand in the middle.
I stand with the citizens.
And I stand with the people.
Right now we have got a situation, we have got those people
in the White house don't want to listen to us at all, and so
we have got to make the voices more heard.
Let your voice be heard.
The authority that you have in this country, also.
Stop giving away authority to the ones that just want to
crap on you.
Really, America, they just want to crap on you.
Don't let them crap on you no more.
Now, as far as the situation going on in the city, the
homeless situation, yeah, a major situation going on,
because I'm homeless, too.
You are in trouble just as well as someone on the street.
So get the study into law and get the study into truth, if
you are an American you should be studying the law anyhow.
You should be in the library studying how to be an American.
Thank you.
09:28:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Next, please.
09:28:13 >> Morning, Mr. Chairman, members of council.
Al Steenson, 4100 west Leila Avenue, Tampa 33616.
The item I want to speak on this morning doesn't even have
an item number on it but it comes up and it's going to be a
verbal report from legal regarding a request that I made
back on May 12th regarding impact fees.
I talked to Ms. Kert yesterday and I think what you are
going to hear today is we can't do it.
09:28:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I think that item has been continuously, if
I am not mistaken.
It's a second reading.
It's a second reading so it's a public hearing.
I apologize.
09:28:58 >> But 49 is not dependent on this report, is it not?
In other words, can I speak to the --
09:29:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
49 is still public hearing, so that's why --
it's already set for public hearing for second reading.
09:29:14 >> So my remarks need to wait until we call 49?
09:29:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes, sir.
I apologize.
09:29:21 >> Thank you.
09:29:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Next?
Anyone else?
09:29:28 >> Yes.
Derek Chamblee, Google DEREK, D-E-R-E-K, C-H-A-M-B-L-E-E.
Derrick Google Chamblee, citizen lawyer.
Google C-Y-B-I-T-E-O.
Google E-N-T-E-L-I-N-T-E-R.
Google Tampa Bay Times E-N-T-E-L-I-N-T-E-R.
Google Derek Chamblee New City.
Google Derek Chamblee, hurricane.
And I'm here to touch on a couple of things, reviewing your
meeting last week, this power struggle, power struggle.
That's what I call it.
A power struggle between members of the council over who was
going to be the next chair to perhaps succeed mayor Bob
Buckhorn who continues to think that he can win the
governorship of the State of Florida, and he can't even get
crosswalks on Kennedy Boulevard.
We need those crosswalks and we needed them a year ago.
People are dying out there.
Dodging the cars.
I have been here before, many times before.
Between Oregon, Dakota and Rome.
We need those crosswalks.
The workers want those crosswalks.
The shoppers want them.
The neighborhood people want them.
We need the speed limits slowed down.
We have got to put an end to the speeding cars through
there.
Every time I'm doing my sign own Howard and Kennedy, every
single time, I'm personally waiving off wrong way drivers
that turn south on Howard.
I told the police achieve about it.
I told the mayor about it.
Mayor Bob Buckhorn said, oh, it must be scary crossing the
street there.
I would like the mayor to come out of that little office and
go down there and watch a woman pushing her baby carriage
running across the street with her baby carriage for her
life and her baby's life.
Now, I forgot what else was going to talk B.anyway, the
Buckhorn stops there, on Oregon, Kennedy Boulevard, the
mayor is not going to go any further.
Maybe he needs to be governor to get crosswalks in his own
city because he tells me it's the D.O.T., the state
Department of Transportation cannot run Kennedy Boulevard,
they cannot run this city.
It's no longer a state highway.
(Bell sounds).
09:32:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Is there anyone else in the public who would like to speak
on any item other than those set for public hearing?
I see no one.
Next up is requests by the public for reconsideration of
legislative matters.
Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak about
any reconsideration of legislative matters?
I see no one.
Next up are committee reports.
First up is Parks, Recreation and Culture Committee, Mr.
Maniscalco is chair.
09:33:19 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I move items 4 through 20.
09:33:22 >> Second.
09:33:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Maniscalco.
Second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor?
Any opposed? Thank you.
Next up, because Mr. Reddick is not here, the vice chair Mr.
Maniscalco if you could take Public Works Committee.
09:33:37 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I move items 21 through 27.
09:33:42 >> Second from Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Next up is Finance Committee.
But before I go to Mr. Cohen, our chair, I want to point out
that item number 24, it is a memorandum of understanding
between the City of Tampa and legal services and I want to
make sure that our legal counsel knows this, that my wife is
an employee of bay area legal services, she is not a team
member for this particular contract, and if I read it the
contract correctly there is no money exchanged between the
City of Tampa and bay area legal services.
He want to make sure it's proper for me to vote on this
particular item.
09:34:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I have had an opportunity to be review the
memorandum of understanding and it is my opinion that it
does not rise to the level of requiring you to abstain, and
you have a requirement to vote.
09:34:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cohen, if you could take the Finance Committee.
09:34:36 >>HARRY COHEN:
I move items 24 through 27.
09:34:38 >> Second.
09:34:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Cohen.
A second from Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Next up, building, zoning, preservation committee, Ms.
Montelione.
09:34:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I move items 28 through 40.
09:34:55 >> Second.
09:34:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Mrs. Montelione, second
from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Next up is our transportation committee, Ms. Capin.
09:35:07 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I move very important item 41.
09:35:11 >> Second.
09:35:13 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mrs. Capin, a second from
Mr. Miranda.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Next up we have item being set for public hearing.
Item number 42.
Miranda move item 42 for August 4, 2016 at 10:30 in the
morning.
09:35:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Second by Mr. Maniscalco all in favor?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Next up we have our first public hearing which is item
number 43.
This is a non-quasi-judicial hearing.
So we still need to, I believe, open it up.
I have a motion from Mr. Cohen.
I have a second from Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Mrs. Little.
09:35:58 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Good morning.
San yeah little, revenue and finance.
As it relates to the public hearings, I would like to just
provide you with background information as it relates to
this item and public hearing.
If I can have the presentation come up on the screen,
please.
We are discussing the program of our community investment
tax program, and providing a little bit of history just as a
recap for public purposes related to the tax.
If you will recall back in September of 1996, Hillsborough
County voters approved the one half cent local government as
the infrastructure's third.
On July 10, 1996 Hillsborough County enacted an ordinance
that allows the county to levy a one half cent local
government infrastructure surtax.
I would like to also point out when I first came here, I
finally figured out that this tax has many names.
We also refer to it as the Community Investment Tax or CIT,
so they are all one in the same.
The ordinance provides that revenues generated from this tax
can be used to provide funding for general government,
public safety and educational infrastructure purposes in
Hillsborough County, City of Tampa, Plant City, Temple
Terrace.
Finally, the tax was approved for a 30-year period.
And it actually sunsets in 2026.
Revenue specific to the City of Tampa from a historical
basis since its inception provided on this chart back in 97
starting at $5.8 million, and, if you will recall, in our
midyear review, we provided you with the FY 16 projected
collections of 17.3, but for the time period that we are
focusing on we are projecting beginning in FY 17 at 17.5 and
then the projections through 21 are very conservative growth
assumption where we have assumed 2% in years '17 and '19 and
1.5% in years '20 and '21.
As I mentioned, we are talking about program 5, years '17
through '21, and provided on this chart are the expenditures
all the way up to May 2026 for each five year increment
since inception of the tax starting in program 1 for FY 97
to 01 it gives you all the way through the current program 4
which we are currently in the final year FY 16, a list of
all the projects that have been funded for the City of Tampa
of the tax bond program.
Specific to the program that we are coming before you today
for the public hearing and the resolution requesting
authorization of the project in the five-year program,
again, the county ordinance requires that each participant,
the county and all of the cities including the City of Tampa
within the county provide a five-year project list.
So for years '17 through '21, this is a recap of what is in
your agenda package, your agenda item exhibit A.
And it provides a breakdown of the projects proposed under
this new five-year program.
Program 5.
To start out with the first row, public safety for grand
total of $36 million which is inclusive of over the
five-year period in the first column to the left.
28.2 million of community investment tax --
09:40:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If I could interrupt you for a second.
Oh, I apologize.
I thought you had a question.
Continue.
I apologize.
Go ahead.
09:40:47 >>SONYA LITTLE:
And then we have also been talking for
several weeks if not a couple of months as it relates to
bonding out or funding some of those projects.
Starting out with public safety, in that category for the
five-year program, we are looking to fund new fire stations
which will include design and construction for fire station
number 23 in the New Tampa area.
The city already owns the land.
And we are looking -- moving forward with construction
design and construction for that project.
But it also includes design for another fire station during
this time period in the K-Bar Ranch area.
Further to that point, it will also cover fire station
remodeling.
09:41:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If I could interrupt you again.
This time, Mrs. Montelione.
09:41:47 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
These numbers as we talked about
yesterday don't include any breakdowns.
So it doesn't tell me what percentage -- it doesn't tell
anybody, not just me, doesn't tell anybody what percentage
of that funding will go to the new fire stations, what will
go to remodeling, what will go to fire rescue vehicles, what
will go to police vehicles.
So it's just a lump sum for those five things.
09:42:15 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Well, I can tell you for fire station 23,
the estimates are 4.7 million.
Again, we already own the land.
So roughly 4.7 million for completion of design and
construction.
And then the bulk of that is our vehicle -- public safety
vehicle program we have been talking about for years,
especially for police department replacement program such as
it is.
We have vehicles that don't rotate out for nine -- actually,
10, 11, 12, 13 years. So the goal has been over the last
couple of years to start moving towards at least a nine year
replacement program.
So with the C.I.T. funding for lease vehicles over the
five-year period, our goal is to get all of our vehicles,
all of our patrol vehicles on the nine year replacement
program.
So roughly $22.5 million.
09:43:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So we have got 22.5 for just the police
vehicles?
09:43:31 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Over a five-year period, yes, ma'am.
09:43:35 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And 4.7 for construction of fire station
number 23.
09:43:43 >>SONYA LITTLE:
That's correct.
09:43:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So that -- that is 28 roughly.
09:43:49 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Well, I am not done.
The rest it is fire vehicles also is a large bulk of it.
Over 8 million to replace the majority of the priority of
fire vehicle exempt by the department.
Including ambulance and fire rescue vehicles.
09:44:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Over a five-year period.
That's 8 million.
And new fire truck is a million.
Roughly.
09:44:21 >>SONYA LITTLE:
This is for ambulances and fire rescue
vehicles.
09:44:26 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Chief Forward and I had a little talk
about this yesterday.
I'm always looking for more.
Some of our stations don't have rescue vehicles at all.
So I think, if I am correct, Chief Forward, it was 14 of the
stations have rescue vehicles?
Okay, so 14 of the current 22 stations have rescue vehicles.
14 out of 22.
I think the general public, I don't know, even most of the
city police, I would think every station has a rescue
vehicle because you would like to think when you call for an
emergency, the closest fire station is going to have a
rescue vehicle that's going to come get you.
And we are in 14 out of our 22 stations.
That's a real concern.
So I don't know what kind of -- as we go into the budget
process, I'll be bringing that up again and again and again,
because we need to have more rescue vehicles.
We can only rely on outside transport for so much.
They only provide basic life support.
So we have a need for those rescue vehicles.
And 8 million is over five years is not going to go really
far.
09:45:51 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Well, this isn't the end all be all,
because as you mentioned we are in the middle of our budget
process. This is only one component. This comes out
because of our requirements under the county ordinance.
So, yes, we have been having discussions with fire
department --
09:46:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Right, Chief Forward and I have this
conversation a couple of times a year and he always know I
going to fight to get him more equipment and more
personnel.
You can't have equipment if you don't have the personnel to
go along it with.
09:46:21 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Right.
On the budget side we discussed both the additional
personnel for budgeting purposes, on the general government
side, that is not a C.I.T. qualified -- right -- but also
the additional equipment on that site as well.
But as far as allocating the resources that are available to
C.I.T. funding, this is our project list.
09:46:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Not that I don't think the police
department deserves 22.5 million but it just seems a bit
lopsided.
So we have 8 million in fire and 22.5 with police.
So that number just seems a little lop sided to me.
But that's all I am going to say about that.
09:47:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Miranda, off question?
09:47:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Along those same lines -- and I
appreciate everything that we discussed yesterday.
I appreciate your honesty and your straightforwardness,
yourself and your staff.
The reason in my mind is that the vehicle breakdowns are
much more prevalent in the police department than they are
in the fire department because they are on the road a lot
more often as far as time, on shifts.
The reason being that sometime back, two administrations
back, under the Greco administration, there were 06 vehicles
at a time being at the shop that were unavailable.
So we had ab asset that was not used at all.
We had public services that were not given at all because
the vehicles were down, and we had area expansions larger in
the area because the vehicles were not available at all.
That was made at that time necessarily to change the regular
routine or whatever regular was at that time.
That was done.
And I pressures and your administration's courage to come up
and say we are having the same problem before we get to it,
let's solve it.
And when a vehicle is down, no matter what service it is,
the public is not getting their due process of service.
So these investments are costly.
These investments -- however, as costly as they are, on the
other side of the ledger, what does it cost of something not
getting done?
A quick response, a faster time to get there, the saving of
a life in the fire department, apprehension of an evil --
whatever that evilness may be by the police department --
and these are the things you have to look at, like you and I
and your staff discussed yesterday as to why these things
become paramount, necessary, and the service that we do.
And all we are really as a government is a service.
Sounds simple but it's very complex.
And again I want to thank you and your staff for taking the
time to meet with me yesterday.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
09:49:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Mrs. Little, go ahead.
09:49:25 >>SONYA LITTLE:
All right, public safety, 36 million.
The next category is parks and rec for a total of 22.4.
At a previous City Council meeting we discussed and approved
the $15 million for Julian B. Lane, and over and beyond that
an additional under this program, an additional $5.8 million
for other improvements to exhibiting parks, included in that
category as well.
Transportation, our bridges, and particularly Brorein and
Cass Street bridges are in need of repairs as it relates to
construction and electrical.
So 5.6 million of that is going towards our bridge repairs
with the remaining amount of that total 7.1 for sidewalk and
the intersection improvements.
Again on stormwater we came before you at a previous City
Council meeting with a proposal for the capital improvement
assessment for stormwater which included a $20 million
contribution from the C.I.T. funding.
Just to be remind everybody that we are talking about a
five-year project list, but this proposal assumes that a
loan would be obtained in order to general rate the $50
million in the middle column to fund these projects and pay
back over a ten-year period.
09:51:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Go ahead, Mr. Cohen.
09:51:06 >>HARRY COHEN:
Two questions.
The first one, how did you determine which of these items
you wanted to pay for directly out of the tax and which you
wanted to be funded by the debt?
It would seem that the two really are the same.
Why is one in one column rather than the other?
09:51:26 >>SONYA LITTLE:
When you are considering that it makes more
sense -- it has to have a useful life of the actual asset
that at least is less than or equal to -- or equal to the
term of the debt.
09:51:38 >>HARRY COHEN:
So new cars would be a bad thing to finance
with the debt because the car might not make it to the term
of the bonding?
09:51:48 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Exactly.
Yes, sir.
Under that column it would be specialty equipment that has a
longer life, a longer useful life that would be more
appropriate to put in the debt column.
09:51:58 >>HARRY COHEN:
And then my second question is about the $20
million.
Regardless of whether council goes forward with what we had
talked about based on what Mr. Maniscalco brought back a few
weeks ago, this money would -- there would be $20 million
over the next five years for stormwater.
If we don't go forward with the other proposal, this 20
million, it would still be there.
09:52:27 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Under this plan, yes, sir, it would still
be there.
For stormwater purposes.
09:52:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Before you go on I have one quick question,
and this is something that we had talked about privately,
too, which is why go it alone as opposed to a bond issue or
something like that, in terms of the differences for how
much we have to pay back in terms of the interest rate and
so on, if you could just explain that really quickly.
09:52:51 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Yes, sir.
We are always seeking to get the lowest interest cost
possible, and at the time that we are ready to proceed with
this project, with the issuance of debt, we will surveil the
market to determine if a bank loan or a bond issue provides
the city with the lowest cost, all market driven, and it
flip-flops day to day, which is more economical.
So we'll determine that at the time we are ready to proceed
with the transaction.
09:53:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And with bond issues typically they are
longer issues as opposed to loans where you can do a shorter
issue and maybe get better interest.
09:53:25 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Most often than not, bank loans are more
frequently the more attractive vehicle.
12349 thank you.
Any other questions before we go on?
Mrs. Little.
09:53:37 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Thank you.
And then the final page of the presentation provides the
debt service that we have been talking about.
You are aware that we already have outstanding C.I.T. debt,
series 2006 which was issued to fund park improvements, and
then in 2010 we did a refund to decrease the debt service
and generate tax flow savings, and the figures here provide
the annual debt service over the five-year period, total
that we would pay out in the debt.
And summarizes it in each of the columns.
09:54:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you for excellent estimates, and
those what these are.
And I am appreciative of all your statements.
However, let me just say that we have to look forward at
this C.I.T., or the community investment tax, as it's well
known, doesn't last forever.
It ends in the year 2026.
So what I'm saying, whoever wants to run for these seats,
whoever may be here at that time, all these moneys that you
look at, it's not paper money, it's real money.
So these replacements are going to happen every so often.
These costs are to be incurred, standardized in a period of
time, and also the repairs of the funding of stadiums that
were brought into this thing will still happen.
So whoever takes this seat and whoever takes the seat next
door, get prepared, because that paper money of monopoly
will not exist.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
09:55:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Nip other questions or comments?
09:55:36 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I am going to bring up Julian B. Lane park,
because it's 15 million, right, Mrs. Little?
09:55:47 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Yes, ma'am.
09:55:48 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
And the reason we I bring it up, and we
voted on it last week.
I wanted to say that when I voted, and my colleagues here,
that it was -- the goal was a better quality of life.
And with a better quality of life, we encourage economic
development, and economic development in turn has companies
coming to our area and staying in our area, and that in turn
creates better quality of life and jobs, a very important
part.
Also, when we looked at this amount of money, I have always
said that we need to -- our future depends on the ability to
plan, assess the risk, understand the return on investment,
and reinvestment along with the courage to act.
And this council has that courage.
So I just want to say that, because I did not get the chance
last week.
And it's here 15 million so I am bringing it up now.
Thank you.
09:56:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Montelione.
09:56:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So being the only council member who
voted against it, I did have the opportunity to speak about
that last week, and since I brought up numbers in a previous
statement that I made, again, I am all for quality of life.
Everybody knows that I am all in favor of economic
development, but I in large part want to see that quality of
life and economic development happen in many areas of the
city.
We have North Tampa with the University of South Florida,
Busch Gardens, Moffitt Cancer Center, I can go own and on
with the assets we have there, and I have not seen that kind
of investment in that area to the third largest job center
in the entire county.
And having all of this money, and you gave me the numbers
last week, we have got multi-million dollar parks within an
8th of a mile of each other.
And that's a tremendous asset.
It will spur, you know, a lot of changes downtown, but there
is an inequity of balance from what I see, and it's not just
in the numbers I talked about earlier but in these numbers
as well.
So that's what I will maintain and continue to champion for
is the investment to be spread out amongst many areas of the
city and not clustered in just one.
09:58:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Cohen.
09:58:29 >>HARRY COHEN:
Well, I admire your passion for your
district, but I think it's important to point out that the
one new fire station that we are voting on today in the
community investment tax is going to be built in your
district.
And I am voting for it because I believe that it is
important to invest in all areas of the city, and that's
precisely what we are doing.
09:58:52 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you for bringing that up.
09:58:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
[Off microphone.]
09:59:02 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Well, you got it now.
09:59:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So we have been waiting for that fire
station.
So very happy after nine years we are having a design -- a
construction of fire station 23, and with the preponderance
of economic development near the county line, it's way past
due.
09:59:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Any other comments or questions for Mrs. Little?
Thank you, Mrs. Little.
Before we go forward is there anyone in the public that
would like to speak on item number 43?
This is a public hearing concerning this item.
43.
09:59:41 >> Motion to close.
09:59:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion to close from Mr. Miranda.
Second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Miranda move the resolution.
09:59:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second from Mr. Cohen to move this resolution.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Next up, I think -- are there members from the Heart
Association here?
Before we go on to our public hearings, set for 9:30 a.m.,
if I could have the members of the American Heart
Association come forward.
Come up to the podium, ladies.
Yes.
Mrs. Capin will do the honors for City Council.
10:00:41 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Today we welcome the American Heart
Association to the City Council in honor of CPR appreciation
week, and Katie Kimbell, American Heart Association chair,
and Dr. Robert Benges, board member and missions committee
chair, and you are another board member. Javier Cuevas.
Thank you.
You know, that's great.
You did the rowing team and Heart Association.
Those fantastic.
And Robert isn't with us today but I would like to recognize
him.
And Katie Fowler, American Heart Association Executive
Director.
And Amanda.
Hi, Amanda.
erican Heart Association community health director.
One of the things the American Heart Association's training
program save lives, here are statistics.
70% of out of hospital cardiac arrests happen at home and
90% of the people who suffer out of hospital cardiac arrests
die.
That's huge.
Only 46% of the people who experience cardiac arrest get the
immediate help they need before professional help arrives.
That's what we are doing here today.
Hands-only CPR has been shown to be effective as
conventional CPR and can be learned in less than 90 second.
I did it.
It's really amazing what the can happen with that.
By doing the viewing the American Heart Association's
training video, heart.org at slash hands-only CPR, just
click it.
It's a 90 second video and you never know when you are going
to find yourself.
We all know I am just going to read the commendation.
During CPR/ADD awareness week of June 1 through 7, 2016,
Tampa City Council is honored to recognize the American
Heart Association for their outstanding work of saving lives
in the Tampa Bay community.
The American Heart Association's mission is to increase the
survival rate from one of our nation's leading cause of
death.
Cardiac arrest each year over 350,000 out-of-hospital
cardiac arrests occurring in the United States and survival
depends on the immediate CPR.
The American Heart Association's CPR training plays a vital
role in the person's chance to survive -- of survival since
it can double or even triple a person's chance of surviving
cardiac arrest.
It is Tampa City Council's privilege to commend the American
Heart Association and express our gratitude for your
commitment and education and training to our community.
Thank you.
[ Applause ]
10:04:26 >> Thank you so much.
Really, thank you to the entire council and to the City of
Tampa.
I am Katie temple.
I'm chairman of the American Heart Association, Tampa Bay
metro board.
And about 18 months ago, we set a goal to materially improve
the chain of survival of our residents in Tampa Bay, and all
of the research has absolutely proven, all of the statistics
that were shared, but it's so true, the chances of survival
when CPR is administered immediately after a heart event
will double or even triple a person's chance of survival.
And because it's the number one killer, chances are that the
person that will be administering CPR and helping the victim
is a loved one, or a colleague, or a fellow student or a
teacher.
So the work that we are doing, and you are doing, will
absolutely improve those lives.
Our goal is to train 150,000 people in the Tampa Bay area by
the end of 2017.
And I thank you because your efforts will actually help
us -- not help us -- will enable us to achieve that goal.
Thank you.
[ Applause ]
10:06:00 >> Can I get a picture with you?
10:06:03 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Sure.
I love pictures.
10:06:04 >> Both my grandfathers died of massive heart attacks at
young airlines, they were in the their mid 50s.
And if that type of technology and that type of training was
available in the mid to late sixth when they passed away, I
would have had a grandfather.
And I did not growing up.
So it is a great thing that you do.
Thank you so much for training folks and making sure that
their loved ones are not going to have to suffer not having
a loved one around.
So thank you so much for everything you do.
10:06:33 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I am just going to say this to everyone
that's listening, it really is simple.
And it is so simple.
I was very impressed.
When I first looked at it, and how simple it was, even I can
do it.
Thank you so much.
10:06:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, ladies.
We are going to start our 9:30 public hearings.
If I could get a motion to open 44 through 58.
I have a motion from Mr. Miranda, a second from Mr.
Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Okay.
Item number 44, still non-quasi-judicial.
And I think we have staff to talk about number 44.
Anyone from staff here to speak on item number 44?
10:07:24 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.
Related to the forfeiture and that's all the information I
have right now.
If you would like a more detailed report I can send you more
information on that.
10:07:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
To comply with state law that becomes
effective the first of July.
10:07:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, Mr. Miranda S.therein anyone in
the public to speak on item number 44?
Motion to close from Mr. Miranda.
I have a second from Mrs. Capin.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mr. Miranda, if you could take number 44.
10:07:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move file E-2016-8 chapter 14, an
ordinance presented for second reading and adoption, an
ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida, amending Tampa City
Code, section 14-30, to modify the definition of knowledge
required on the part of a vehicle owner to identify -- to
deny qualification as an innocent owner under the ordinance
and to change the standard of proof required in judicial
proceedings, providing for severability, providing an
effective date.
10:08:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Mr. Miranda, a second
from Mr. Cohen.
Please vote and record.
10:08:46 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick and Montelione
being absent.
10:08:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Now we are going to continue to with items
45 through 58. If anyone is going to speak on items 45
through 58, please stand and be sworn.
(Oath administered by Clerk).
10:09:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you very much.
Item number 45.
10:09:14 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Land development.
The site plan has been revised and submitted to the city
clerk's office.
10:09:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Petitioner?
10:09:24 >> Good morning.
10:09:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Is there anyone in the audience that would
like to speak on item 45, AB-2-15-22?
Please come forward.
10:09:45 >> Good morning.
My name is Dwight Bolden, own a business at 1611 north
Albany Avenue.
And I come here representing some of the business owners in
the area.
And we oppose the license being permitted to that business
on the grounds of, one, more people would be here if the
notice had been provided.
For the last hearing and this hearing.
It was an eleventh-hour decision to be here because we did
not find out until last night that this hearing would take
place.
West Tampa, and this redevelopment, has been under a lot of
pressure from folks that live in the immediate area because
there has not been attention paid to the folks that live and
work in the immediate area.
We oppose this term basically because there are alcohol
businesses in the area, for quite a while.
And one more, we feel, is a little too much.
The other part of that is that another alcohol business in
this area has put a weight on the businesses in the area as
far as parking.
My business is impacted by his customers that don't live in
the area who come down to the area from other places and
take up parking spaces all over the place, and you can't get
to the businesses that have been there and have exhibited
over the years because of his customers taking up parking
spaces that really are not wanted.
He has people parking in business there, in the business
area, in that area, that the owners of that area don't even
know there is parking there because they are coming at hours
that they are not around.
I am not going to take up any more time.
I want to thank you and ask you to please to not permit the
permit.
Thank you, sir.
10:12:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Next up, please, sir.
10:12:47 >> Good morning.
I'm with West Tampa alliance.
And we also oppose this business permit through the fact
that we first came to West Tampa, we expected that things
are going to be okay.
Well, since that time, we had some bad things going on with
Mr. Morris and his contractors.
All this was in the paper because of what had happened one
morning.
Mr. Morris and saying things that are untrue that he's again
been going around meeting with the business owners.
And they approved of him coming there, and that's not true.
And he's been saying that he's been cleaning up around the
area, in that community.
That's a lie.
Mr. Morris has been having his customers park in the parking
lot, and these people have been, the people in West Tampa
alliance, have been cleaning up since the time he's been
there.
He said that he's been cleaning up around the area for some
time, and he hasn't.
As a matter of fact, you can go behind his building right
now and see all the trash that he has behind his building
came out the front of his place that he trimmed the palm
trees in front of his place and had the guys put it in the
back of the building.
And I also witnessed Mr. Morris coming over to a dumpster
over by the church that I attend, didn't even open the trash
container to put the trash in.
Just throwed it around the dumpster.
What I'm saying is this.
The community and the business owners don't feel that he's
the type of person to be in West Tampa as a business owner.
More people like Mr. Bolden was saying most people are
unable to be here, and as he said, we didn't know anything
about this.
But we go against it.
And I hope that you consider that.
Thanks.
10:15:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Anyone else that is going to speak on item number 45?
45?
10:15:30 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Move to close.
10:15:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Hang on a second.
10:15:36 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
One more?
I'm sorry.
10:15:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
No problem.
Go ahead.
10:15:39 >> Just a comment on the last person who spoke.
I actually spoke to him yesterday it.
10:15:47 >> Could you state your name again?
10:15:49 >> Robert Morris.
I am shocked at what I am hearing.
He knows what I am doing.
He made no reference to that yesterday when I spoke to him.
So I am completely shocked that those comments are not true,
and he knows -- his brother in the neighborhood works with W
me, and he would pay him to take care of it.
So what he's saying is utterly false and I am shocked at
those comments.
I am just really upset about that right now.
Yes, he never said anything or talked about this before.
They are in much support of us being there.
So I'm just shocked.
10:16:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Before we go forward I have one question of staff.
One of the public members mentioned about not being noticed
on this particular item.
I just want to make sure was this duly noticed?
10:16:48 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
I think you have to remember that the
original public hearing was December 17th, and
continuously hearings are not noticed.
By mail.
10:17:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So the second public hearing is not going to
be noticed because --
10:17:04 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
It is not done by mail.
10:17:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
By mail.
Thank you.
Any other questions or comments?
Sir, there's no more public comment now.
You have had your say.
Yes, ma'am?
10:17:19 >>THE CLERK:
The first reading that was done, I did
announce the second public hearing would be on June 2nd
at 9:30 a.m.
10:17:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
Any other comments or questions from council?
To staff or anyone else?
I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione to close, second by Mr.
Miranda.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Okay.
Mrs. Capin, will you take number 45, please?
10:17:46 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
With pleasure.
An ordinance being presented for second reading and
adoption, an ordinance approving a special use permit S-2
for alcoholic beverage sales, small venue, on premises
consumption only and making lawful the sale of beer and wine
at or from the that certain lot, plot or tract of land
located at 2106 west Main Street, Tampa, Florida as more
particularly described in section 2, that all ordinances or
parts of ordinances in conflict are repealed, providing an
effective date.
10:18:15 >> Second.
10:18:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion from Mrs. Ma can Capin.
I have a second from Mrs. Montelione.
Please record your votes.
10:18:23 >>THE CLERK:
I'm showing that Miranda voted no, Suarez
voted no, and Reddick absent. Motion carried.
10:18:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Item number 46.
46.
10:18:40 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Land Development Coordination.
Good morning.
For item number 46 through 56, these are all rezonings,
special use of petitions that were heard.
The first reading at the May 12 evening meeting.
They are all prepared today for second reading.
All required changes between first and second reading have
been completed.
10:19:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Petitioner.
Item number 46.
10:19:12 >> my name is Juanita, representing the owner.
10:19:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 46, REZ 15-66?
10:19:31 >> Move to close.
10:19:32 >> Motion from Mr. Miranda.
Second from Mrs. Capin.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
Mr. Cohen, will you take number 46, please?
10:19:39 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I move an ordinance being presented for second reading and
adoption, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 2713 St. Louis street and 2801 north Habana
Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
described in section 1 from zoning district classifications
RS-50 residential, single-family, to PD, planned
development, residential, single-family detached, providing
an effective date.
10:20:04 >> Motion from Mr. Cohen.
Second from Mrs. Montelione.
Please record your votes.
10:20:10 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick and Maniscalco
being absent.
10:20:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Item number 47.
Is there anyone here to speak on item number 47?
Petitioner?
If you are the petitioner, please come forward.
10:20:36 >> Good afternoon. K.C. McMahon.
10:20:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Anybody anyone in the public to speak on 47?
47?
Motion to close by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mrs. Capin.
All in favor?
Opposed?
Mrs. Montelione, please take number 47.
10:21:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Move an ordinance being presented for
second reading and adoption, an ordinance rezoning property
in the general vicinity of 320 west Columbus Drive in the
city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
section 1 from zoning district classifications RM-16
residential multifamily to RM-24 residential multifamily
providing an effective date.
10:21:19 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Second.
10:21:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion from Mrs. Montelione.
Second from Mrs. Capin.
Please record your vote.
10:21:26 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick and Maniscalco
being absent.
10:21:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Number 48.
Please come forward.
If you are the petitioner please come forward.
10:21:42 >> K.C. McMahon, petitioner. The one thing the first time,
a detached structure in the back of the unit that you were
unable to see.
10:21:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Put it on the Elmo.
Put it on the side there.
The other way.
The other way.
10:22:05 >> There we go.
We didn't have pictures of the back unit to offer and I
wanted to make sure that you can see that we are not
building by any means, everything already exists, and
there's the picture.
10:22:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you for bringing that forward.
Any questions by council?
In S there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 48, 48?
10:22:28 >> Move to close.
10:22:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Mrs. Montelione.
Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Opposed?
Mr. Miranda, please take number 48.
10:22:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move REZ 16-23, ordinance for second
reading and adoption, an ordinance rezoning property in the
general vicinity of 306 west Columbus Drive in the city of
Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1
from zoning district classifications RM-16 residential
multifamily to RM-24 residential multifamily providing an
effective date.
10:23:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mr. Miranda, second Mr.
from Mr. Maniscalco.
Please record your vote.
10:23:08 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick being absent.
10:23:13 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Item number 49.
Is there a petitioner here?
I apologize.
10:23:21 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.
As part of or slightly after your hearing on the rezoning, a
request to provide a report to council prior to second
reading regarding how the impact fee and mitigation money
can be designated in the into the neighborhood where it is
being projected.
I understood that being tied whether you could do it through
the rezoning process and a rezoning is float to dictate how
the impact fee money is to be spent, to be expended.
There was a broader question.
Than I can have transportation explain if you wanted a
broader discussion on it, to have transportation, how the
impact fee money is being collected and how the project is
being funded or determined.
And recently, a year ago, approximately, you adopted a
multimodal impact fee which was based upon specific studies,
and they can explain how those studies help determine where
that impact fee money can be spent is.
But as far as for rezoning that would not be appropriate.
10:24:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Any questions of staff on this issue?
10:24:34 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I would like to make a motion to have staff
come in and --
10:24:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We'll do that under new business.
10:24:44 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Got it.
Okay.
10:24:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Is there anyone in the public that would
like to speak on item 49?
49?
10:24:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to close.
Oh, oh, oh.
10:24:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I see we do have someone.
10:24:56 >> Al Steenson:
4100 west Leila, 33616.
As far as the petition is concerned, our position is the
same as it was on May 12.
We have no opposition to it.
But I would like to comment regarding the impact fee
question that I brought up.
And I realize that this can be a little sticky situation.
But I did some research on this.
And the last time these impact fees were updated was 1989.
It was a report brought, paid for by Tindale-Oliver and the
report was updated in September 2009.
At that time there was no action taken, no fees increased,
no boundaries changed.
The area that I live in, the Interbay zone, is the second
largest geographical impact rezoning in the city.
We know what's coming down the pike.
We know what's happened in the last five years.
And we know what's coming to us.
Possibly hopefully -- well, we respectfully request that a
report be made up giving us the dollar moneys collected in
the impact fee zone and where that money went to, what
projects did it go to?
And perhaps it may be a time for us to ask for a change in
the boundaries of some of these impact fee zones.
You have got the one little tiny one downtown, the central
business district.
We know what's going on there.
Look at the building that's going on.
Where is that impact fee going?
So with regard to that, I would really like for us to
consider another method on the allocation of these impact
fees.
But what we are doing now, there's got to be a better way.
There's got to be a better way.
Thank you very much.
10:27:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And I apologize to petitioner.
I went to public comment before I went to you.
I apologize.
Thank you, Mr. Steenson.
10:27:26 >>GINA GRIMES:
Hill, Ward, Henderson, 101 Kennedy Boulevard.
I represent the petitioner courtland partners.
And as far as that issue is concerned on the impact fee
money, one of the items that Mr. Steenson and I discussed is
whether or not especially in this situation the payment of
our impact fees and mitigation fee totaled about $225,000,
whether or not that could somehow be used to accelerate the
improvements at Westshore at Gandy which need to be done,
not just for our project but for a host of other projects in
that area.
And I nobody it's been funded but I think the completion of
it is further out in the C.I.T., and I don't know finance
there's any other way we could use the money to accelerate
that and bring it up sooner.
So it's already identified by the city and perhaps this will
help get it done sooner.
10:28:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If I could, the only suggestion to be
supportive of that outside of this zoning hearing.
10:28:32 >>GINA GRIMES:
Right.
10:28:32 >>HARRY COHEN:
I was going to suggest that I think that's
an excellent idea to take to Mrs. Duncan.
already in the budget here, and we need to be aware of it.
10:28:43 >>GINA GRIMES:
Thank you.
10:28:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Is there anyone else in the public that
would like to speak on item 49?
49?
10:28:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to close.
10:28:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion to close by Mr. Miranda.
I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mr. Maniscalco, will you take number 49, please?
10:29:01 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Thank you very much.
I have an ordinance being presented for second reading and
adoption, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 636701 South Westshore Boulevard in the city of
Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1
from zoning district classification RM-24 residential
multifamily to PD planned development, residential,
multifamily, providing an effective date.
10:29:21 >> Second.
10:29:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Maniscalco.
Second bill Mr. Miranda.
Please record your vote.
10:29:27 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick being absent.
10:29:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Item number 50.
Petitioner?
10:29:38 >> Michael Horner, Dale Mabry Highway for the applicant, be
happy to answer any questions.
10:29:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Any questions from council?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 50, 50?
Motion to close by Mr. Maniscalco, second bill Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed? Mrs. Capin, will you take item number 50?
10:30:06 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
An ordinance being presented for second
reading and adoption, an ordinance rezoning property in the
general vicinity of 1801 west Sligh Avenue in the city of
Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1
from zoning district classifications RS-50 residential
single-family to RM-16 residential multifamily providing an
effective date.
Motion from Mrs. Capin.
Second from Mr. Miranda.
Please record your vote.
10:30:34 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick being absent.
10:30:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Item number 51.
51.
Is petitioner here?
Come up front for any petitioner.
10:30:57 >> J.D. Alsabbagh, Sycamore engineering, 8370 West
Hillsborough Avenue, Suite 205, Tampa, Florida 33615,
nothing to add, look forward to your vote.
10:31:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Is there anyone that would like to speak on item number 51?
I have a motion to close by Mr. Cohen.
A second from Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mr. Cohen, will you please take number 51?
10:31:23 >>HARRY COHEN:
I move an ordinance being presented for
second reading and adoption, an ordinance rezoning property
in the general vicinity of 20610 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard in
the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
in section 1 from zoning district classifications PD planned
development bank with drive-in window, office, medical and
office, business/professional, to PD, planned development
bank with drive-in window, office, medical and office,
business/professional providing an effective date.
10:31:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Cohen.
Second by Mr. Miranda.
Please record your vote.
10:31:58 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick being absent.
10:32:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Number 52.
Is petitioner here for item 52?
.
10:32:17 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
This is a Euclidean zoning requesting to
redevelop lots down in the south Interbay area.
We are respectfully requesting your approval.
10:32:25 >> Your name for the record?
10:32:28 >> Steve Michelini.
10:32:29 >> Is there anyone in the public to speak on item 52?
52?
10:32:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion to close.
10:32:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Miranda has a motion.
Second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mr. Maniscalco, will you take item number 52, please.
10:32:50 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I have an ordinance being presented for
second reading and adoption, an ordinance rezoning property
in the general vicinity of 6804 south Englewood Avenue in
the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
in section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-60
residential single-family to RS-50 residential single-family
providing an effective date.
10:33:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Maniscalco.
Second from Mr. Miranda.
Please record your vote.
10:33:21 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick being absent.
10:33:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Item number 53.
53.
Petitioner.
10:33:33 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
This is a townhouse project.
And again it's Euclidean.
There are no waivers being requested.
We respectfully are requesting approval.
10:33:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you. Is there anyone in the public
that would flick speak on item number 53?
53?
54.
I apologize.
54.
Isn't that corrected?
Or 53.
573.
(Laughter)
I apologize.
Okay.
Anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number
53 again.
I see no one.
Motion to close by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Ms. Montelione, will you take number 53?
10:34:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Oh, it is my turn.
Thank you.
I move an ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 310 south Habana Avenue in the city of Tampa,
Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from
zoning district classifications PD planned development,
residential, multifamily, office, business/professional and
congregate living facility to RM-18 residential multifamily
providing an effective date.
10:34:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Second by Mr. Miranda.
Please record your vote.
10:34:50 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick being absent.
10:34:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Now to item number 54.
Petitioner.
10:35:01 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
This petition again is Euclidean
rezoning, and basically no waivers are being requested and
we will be developing according to code.
10:35:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Anyone in the audience that would like to speak on item
number 54.
54.
I see no one.
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mr. Miranda, will you take number 54.
Miranda move file REZ 16-3673, for second reading and
adoption, an ordinance rezoning property.
10:35:36 >>it general vicinity of 504 and 510 north Hubert Avenue in
the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
in section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-50
residential single-family and PD planned development
attached single-family dwelling to RM-18 residential
multifamily, providing an effective date.
10:35:53 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Second.
10:35:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
I have a second by Mrs. Capin.
Please record your vote.
10:36:00 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick being absent.
10:36:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Item number 55.
Petitioner.
10:36:15 >> Jason Kinney, Kinney Engineering, 2573 34th Avenue North.
The petition is to remove the PD zoning that happened a
couple years ago, back to an IG.
10:36:31 >> Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak to
item number 55?
Motion to close from Mr. Miranda.
Second from Mrs. Capin.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mrs. Capin, if you take number 55.
10:36:44 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
An ordinance presented for second reading
and adoption, in the general vicinity of 7102 Interbay
Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
particularly described in section 1 from zoning district
classifications PD planned development, hotel, to IG,
industrial general, providing an effective date.
10:37:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Had second from Mr. Cohen.
Please record your vote.
10:37:08 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick being absent.
10:37:19 >> Truett Gardner, for a drive-through window, meets all the
criteria, at the intersection of Dale Mabry and Henderson,
triangular piece.
10:37:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Is there anyone in the public to be speak on
item number 56?
Motion to close by Mr. Miranda, second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor? Any opposed?
Haven't Mr. Cohen, if you could take number 56.
10:37:46 >>HARRY COHEN:
I move an ordinance being presented for
second reading and adoption, an ordinance approving a
special use permit S-2 approving a drive-in window in a CG
commercial general zoning district in the general vicinity
of 1001 South Dale Mabry Highway in the city of Tampa,
Florida and as more particularly described in section 1
hereof providing an effective date.
10:38:08 >> Second.
10:38:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
A second from Mr. Miranda.
Please record your vote.
10:38:12 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick and Montelione
being absent.
10:38:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Item 57.
Staff.
10:38:25 >>BARBARA LYNCH:
Land Development Coordination.
I want to remind you the city is the applicant in this
petition.
10:38:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you so much.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 57?
VAC 16-10.
Motion to close by Mr. Miranda.
I have a second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Mr. Maniscalco, would you take number 57, please.
10:38:49 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I have an ordinance being presented for
second reading and adoption, an ordinance vacating, closing,
discontinuing, and abandoning a portion of 20th Avenue
and alleyway lying south of 21st Avenue north of
17th Avenue east of Avenida Republica de Cuba and west
of 15th street in Cuscaden's grove first addition a
subdivision in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County
Florida the same being more fully described in section 1
hereof subject to certain covenants more particularly settle
forth herein providing an effective date.
10:39:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Maniscalco, second by Mr.
Miranda.
Please record your vote.
10:39:28 >> Motion carried with Reddick being absent.
10:39:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Item number 58.
10:39:36 >>BARBARA LYNCH:
Land Development Coordination.
The applicant couldn't be here today and ask if you would
move this forward.
There were no objections and staff had in a problem with it.
10:39:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Is there anyone in the public to speak on
VAC 16-013?
Motion to close about from Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mrs. Montelione loan, if you could take item number 58,
please.
10:40:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Oh, it's my turn again.
An ordinance vacating -- after last week when I couldn't
speak I'm excited.
I'm all excited.
And Mr. Cohen had quite the time laughing last week at me.
An ordinance vacating -- I move an ordinance vacating,
closing and discontinuing and abandoning that certain alley
lying east of Clearfield Avenue and west of Lynn Avenue and
north of Alva street and site of Chelsea street in Chelsea,
a subdivision in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County the
same being more fully described in section 1 hereof, subject
to certain easement reservations, covenants,a conditions and
restrictions more particularly set for the herein, providing
an effective date.
10:41:06 >> Motion carried.
With Reddick being absent.
10:41:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion to open number 59.
A second from Mrs. Capin.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
If there is anyone here that is going to speak on item
number 59, E 2016-8 chapter 27, if you are going to speak,
please stand to be sworn.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
Petitioner?
10:41:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
This is a review hearing of City Council.
It's a review of a decision of the Variance Review Board VRB
16-22 for property at 4730 north Habana Avenue.
To remind you that pursuant to the code, 27-61, in reviewing
a board decision City Council shall apply a de novo standard
of a review and shall not be limited to that review by that
testimony, documentation upon which the board based its
determination, City Council may receive new evidence.
City Council after reviewing the decision of the board and
after hearing evidence and testimony may either affirm the
board's decision, may remand the matter back to the board
for further proceedings with direction on how the board
failed to comply with the standard of the code, or may
overturn the decision of the board.
If a petition is remanded back to the board then the board
should only take action based upon a direction from the City
Council indicating how the board failed to comply with the
applicable standards of the code.
10:42:48 >> City attorney's office.
I am going to hand you section 27-80 City of Tampa code
application to variance power the hardship and practical
difficulty section.
10:43:08 >> Eric Cotton, Land Development Coordination.
I have been sworn.
This is a petition for review, represented by Todd Pressman.
The VRB presentation on February 9th, 2016, and at that
hearing the board unanimously denied the request.
At the time the applicant, the height of the sign to 34
feet, to reduce the setbacks from 15 feet to 1 foot,
increase square footage from 50 square feet to 257.3 square
feet.
Section 27-289.6 which was to increase the square footage of
electronic messaging center from 50 square feet to 128.7
square feet.
This is on Habana Avenue, a medical facility.
In red is the sign at that location. This was provided by
the applicant.
This is the sign as it currently stands.
At the time of the VRB case was requesting to replace this
portion with an electronic messaging sign.
And this is an aerial again whereof the sign is being
proposed.
An existing sign.
The applicant as part of the requirement of chapter 27, when
you have a nonconforming sign and you want to place an
electronic messaging center, you are required to bring it
into conformance meaning the applicant had to comb before
the Variance Review Board, ask for variances to the height,
the square footage, and the setbacks, and asking for a
variance to increase the square footage of the electronic
messaging center from 50 square feet to the 128.7 square
feet.
10:45:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I apologize, Mr. Cotton.
That was the original request in the VRB?
10:45:26 >>ERIC COTTON:
Correct.
10:45:27 >> From 50 to 128 square foot for the electronic sign.
Thank you.
Any questions by council?
Petitioner?
10:45:47 >> Todd Pressman, East Lake Road, Palm Harbor, Florida.
I do have a Power Point if we could pull that up, please.
There it is.
The staff did a good job of presenting this to you.
To orient you to the site, we are located on Habana Avenue.
And this is an existing site and existing sign.
This is how the property appraiser has the entire property.
This is a very large three-building complex for medical
doctors.
It's being taken over by Dr. Gary who will maintain it for
individual doctors but also bring doctors to a major medical
use. This is really a small medical campus on this
particular site.
It's extremely well maintained as you can see.
I am going to make you aware council members we are making
changes and won't be heard from the VRB board.
We are seeking reduction of what was proposed.
But this is the existing sign.
Quite frankly it's a monster, 257 square feet.
It is by far the largest, the biggest thing in the vicinity.
You can see a car down below as a reference.
Again, this sign is a monster.
What we did with the VRB, not a single change of the height
or the setback or the square footage.
What was presented to VRB was to change one section out, the
message center.
And it would look as shown on the screen.
What we are proposing today is a major reduction. We did
listen to the VRB.
I got a couple calls from some neighbors, talked to a couple
of neighbors, and what we are seeking to do -- and I am
going to pass this out if I may.
This is a comparison that I just handed out to you.
257 square feet.
We are seeking to reduce it pretty much in half to 125
square feet.
We are still taking an electronic message.
According to city standards, of course.
But we are proposing to cult down in half what we had
before. We recognize that we had a very large sign that had
a lot of square footage, had a lot of impact. This is going
to reduce the impact, bring it more in line.
The existing sign can stay until repairs and maintenance are
of course permissible.
I think this is nonconforming but we found this was a more
balanced approach for the request, and in regard to
particularly --
10:48:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Pressman, hang on.
10:48:45 >>HARRY COHEN:
Are you saying you are going to tear down
the original sign and replace it with this?
10:48:51 >> No, we would in effect cut in the half.
10:48:56 >>HARRY COHEN:
You are not proposing keeping the big one
until it comes down on its own at some point and then
replacing it with that.
You are actually planning on doing this now.
10:49:04 >> That's correct.
And we have support from council.
That is exactly what we are planning.
I will make you aware in terms of electronic message the
area is very big on health messaging.
These sore of the topics we would want to add along with
other messaging.
In terms of the hardship criteria, the site is very long and
very deep.
The buildings are buried back there that had tremendous
difficulty.
Many people are coming to see them.
Finding it and being able to negotiate into the site.
It's 641 feet more or less by Google deep into the area so
signage is critical particularly in terms of some of the
different outlets.
It's a very large number, very high density of medical
specialty.
Also the property versus a single or few Docs.
And while the Tampa code is good, it has difficulty
recognizing a configuration, depth on a particular roadway
N.summary, and indicated the signs, we are looking at a 50%
decrease.
It's a very high dense property.
The footprint is very deep, very narrow.
It would allow public health messaging and per the city
standards, no animation or scrolling permitted. It's
required to be five minutes per message.
So we appreciate your consideration and thank you for your
time today.
10:50:35 >>HARRY COHEN:
Question of staff.
What would they be allowed as of right if they just -- if
they were taking down the existing sign?
What would they be allowed as of right?
10:50:49 >>ERIC COTTON:
They are allowed a 50-foot square sign, 10
feet tall, 5 feet from the property line.
10:50:57 >>HARRY COHEN:
Trying to compare what they would be allowed
to what the new proposal is.
So --
10:51:03 >>ERIC COTTON:
About two and a half times the size of what
would be allowed by code.
10:51:06 >>HARRY COHEN:
Still a substantial variance.
10:51:12 >>ERIC COTTON:
Yes, sir.
I am not sure how tall is the T sign is going to be.
Perhaps you can clarify it.
Thank you.
10:51:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions?
Okay.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 59, 59?
Come forward, please.
Please state your name for the record.
10:51:34 >> I'm at 2918 west -- and I propose -- I oppose having this
sign be any larger.
I oppose the electronic part of it being any larger than
what's currently allowed.
And I have a couple of reasons for that.
A big concern of mine is access.
I see there are some studies that are done that say, well,
it's not unsafe, but anyone seeing these signs with the
animation is going to think, well, this is a distraction.
And if any of you have ever gone down Habana, this is a
doctor's office, now how hectic the traffic already is.
And I think rather than provide information about whatever
doctor is in the facility I think it's more a distraction
and an accident happening.
And the other thing about it is that they are unattractive.
Any of these signs, none of them look good.
And as far as an example goes, we have another one that's
4600 block of Habana just a couple blocks down, and
apparently the rule is, the animation is not supposed to
change but every five minutes, and every few seconds.
And even the one at St. Joseph's hospital changes more
frequently than.
That so it looks to me like the rule is not that strict, or
it's not enforced.
In fact there was a Tribune article that stated that.
Anyway, those are my basic concerns, is the safety, the
look.
And that's it.
10:53:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, ma'am.
Anyone else in the public that would like to speak on this
item number 59, if you could come forward.
Yes, sir.
10:53:40 >> Good morning.
My name is Frank Messina,.
Just a couple hundred feet from the corner.
I understand the gentleman said -- the original sign, has
been there for 25 years when the building was built.
And I go to the same doctor for many years.
But the illuminated sign, I don't know if it's going to
cause more problems.
And put a sign.
And
We don't want -- this is a residential.
The traffic is bad.
It's Habana.
And
10:55:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Can we have a copy of that, sir?
Is that our copy?
10:55:19 >> Sure.
10:55:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
We appreciate it.
10:55:20 >> [Off microphone.]
10:55:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Go to the microphone if you want to speak.
You were speaking when you were away from the microphone.
I'm sorry.
10:55:31 >> Okay.
So now just a sign, I think in the future going to look for
something different which I don't know what it is, but I
think it's, you know, like I said, so good luck to you.
10:55:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Would anyone else in the public like to
speak on this item?
Yes, ma'am?
My name is Gloria Diaz. I live at 2912 west Audubon, 33614.
My husband and I have lived here for over 50 years and
raised our children here and it's our home.
And during that time, of course, this area has grown.
Now, the main problem I find is the traffic.
And it goes fast and furious on Habana.
And you try to get out of our side streets with the cars
going by.
And if they are distracted by assign in addition to the
speed, I'm afraid we are going to have more accidents.
I think it's going to be a problem.
It's hard enough to get out of the side streets now.
And they are supposed to change once every five minutes but
that seems to be unlikely according to this article.
So I object to the electronic sign.
Thank you very much.
10:57:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Anyone else in the public like to speak on item 59, 59?
I am going to let the petitioner come back for any rebuttal.
Can you show the document to the petitioner?
10:57:54 >> Mr. Chairman and council members, the comments -- I have
great respect for the residents who come down.
I always do.
And great concern about their concern.
But I would suggest to you the concern that they have are
actually better than what's proposed.
The petitioner tells you it's going to contribute to major
vehicle distractions.
But every federal study and state study and local study of
these types of signs was a lot less than messaging.
For example, the electronic build boards are either a minute
or just a few second, have never proven or shown any kind of
distraction or any kind of motor vehicle difficulty.
Some of the comments that the neighbors talked about, like
pollution, well, if they are concerned about light
pollution, this is going to reduce the light pollution next
door significantly.
So looking at an aerial, the sign, this sign is located
here.
You can see there's significant, tremendous -- along that
sign.
Right now you have a sign that is some 20 or 30 higher light
pollution occurring now.
We are going to reduce that in half.
The only visibility, the only visibility you have will be on
Habana.
So I would suggest to you and to the neighbors that this is
a much better option in terms of any kind of light plugs to
the neighborhood.
They also say commercialization of residential neighborhood
and possible health risk.
Well, the health risk I won't respond to. But again if it's
concern about commercialization into a neighborhood, there
is no act sews point whatsoever.
The only access is on Habana.
Again with the reduction of 50% of the height in the
illumination and square footage, it becomes less of a
commercialization on Osborne.
10:59:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Cohen.
11:00:00 >>HARRY COHEN:
Mr. Pressman, what is the hardship here?
11:00:05 >> Well, the hardship as we see it we have a site really
compared to just about everyone on this roadway, and it's a
very deep lot.
600 feet.
Very thin lot.
Very, very thin.
So there is no visibility to any of the users to the rear,
which is not typical.
Typically when you have users, they are located up on the
roadway and they have visibility by the building.
That's not the case here. This is a very high-dense
property with a lot of medical uses, that again are located
very far from the road on a very unique lot in regard to
this particular area.
11:00:44 >>HARRY COHEN:
But you have this great big sign there now.
11:00:49 >> And I think it's part of the criteria as well is we are
not talking about putting up a new sign.
We are talking about a monster existing sign and a way to
reduce that the has a lot less impact to the immediate
community and to the community in general.
This is the business chance to reduce about 100 -- I'm going
just by the math in my head -- 125 square feet of signage
that can stay there and is permissible to stay there.
And we are working towards trying to go to a much smaller,
much lower.
And that's an opportunity we think for the neighbors and for
the council, to the city.
11:01:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Montelione.
11:01:30 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
And this is for staff, actually, sir.
The current sign, as Mr. Pressman referred to it, is the
monster of a sign, is quite large.
So something like that co-never be built brand new in
accordance with our sign code.
11:01:50 >>ERIC COTTON:
Correct.
The legal variance --
11:01:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And the new proposal, I'm not sure if
you had a chance to be see it before.
So this might put you on the spot a little bit.
So the new proposal with the size of the sign, how does that
fit into our current city sign code?
Co-that be built for -- because I know the supports are the
same as the other one -- but how does that fit into our
current city sign code?
Is it in accordance with it?
11:02:22 >>ERIC COTTON:
Land Development Coordination.
The proposed sign that Mr. Pressman showed would still
require a variance.
11:02:27 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And what's the difference between what
would be allowed and what they are proposing today?
11:02:34 >>ERIC COTTON:
The maximum square footage for free-standing
sign in the city is 50 square feet.
He's proposing 25.
Maximum height without getting a variance is 10 feet.
57-foot setback.
I believe the sign is going to be 22 feet at a one foot
setback.
The variance would still be required for a setback.
You go up in height be -- when you are at ten feet, as you
go up in height, increase it -- a 20-foot tall sign would
have a 15-foot setback.
Anything above that would require a variance to the height.
11:03:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
So, Mr. Pressman, what you are asking is so different than
what to the Variance Review Board.
I'm guessing that it's less expensive to just, you know, saw
off the top part of the sign than rebuild it?
Because it seems like that thing is made of iron.
11:03:42 >> Well, I don't build the thing so I was just trying to
grasp, to simply explain what would be proposed there.
I don't really know if it would be a brand new sign or if
they would in a sense chop it off.
I assume, as you are saying, it would be a lot less
expensive just to cut off the top half.
11:04:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Because what you are asking for now is,
although it's still more than what our current sign code
allows, it's a lot closer to it than what is there
currently.
11:04:14 >> It's 60% closer, yes.
And obviously we are presenting that because we are trying
to work with an existing sign, and trying to work with a
balance of what rights the property has at the moment.
11:04:27 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I think what we are lacking is the
opinion of the Variance Review Board on the new proposal
because the new F the new proposal was before the Variance
Review Board they may have approved it.
They may have denied it but they may have approved it but
it's so different from what they heard in the first place.
11:04:50 >> Of course I am always happy to work with council any
direction they want to go.
I did receive a couple of calls from neighbors, and have an
opportunity to touch base with folks who signed the
petition.
I'm happy to work in any direction the council wants to go.
11:05:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Miranda.
Hillsborough.
11:05:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Had I think your mannerism like always,
you do something very respectfully and you know how to
handle it, you know your business very well.
There is few that I say that to, and you fall into that
category of being quite forward and right to the point.
11:05:30 >> Thank you, sir.
11:05:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
However --
11:05:32 >> I hear a "but."
(Laughter).
11:05:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I used however.
You said "but."
So there's a problem, but that's all right.
You know, about 15, 16 days ago, I started doing an
analytical study of my own on signs.
11:05:52 >> Here it comes.
(Laughter).
11:05:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And I got tapes of it.
Not tapes, individual shots.
In fact, I remembered 4620 north Habana.
There's a sign that changes every, I don't know, 10, 15
second.
A dentist's office.
Not only do they have the gall to change that the often.
They advertise that they will advertise for you on their
sign.
And there's about ten advertisements on that sign now.
Just like a continuous script.
Like one of the individuals in the neighborhood said, one of
the large hospitals there on MLK and Habana about a month
ago, or so, also put in an electrical sign.
Just between your petition sign that you are asking for, for
us to review at 4730, and 4620, there's another electrical
sign but it's not on the road, it's up on the building high
up in that area on the same street.
That's all on the west side, by the way.
You were instrumental in making great strides in signage
years back on the highway, and I want to commend you for it
and the people you represented.
You did it with honor with, grace and with dignity.
But what I see now is a proliferation -- maybe I'm stuck on
the words "but" and "however" but a greater amount of signs
on the roadways in the creating a mini Vegas outlook into
neighborhoods.
Although your sign may be what you need, there's other
additional signs, on Lake and Armenia just south of MLK,
there are signs just like that, north of MLK, Armenia, signs
like that on Howard, just north of Columbus Drive.
There are signs between Armenia, proliferated with many
signs like this, which is not yours.
For us to continue to doing this without doing some
further -- and the ordinance is clear that the difficulty,
the practical variance being created by a hardship that you
didn't create yourself.
That's what it sort of says.
And I just find it difficulty to put more and more signs.
If there were none this wouldn't happen but the city decides
to let them go and not enforce them because your sign may be
in the enforceable amount of one every five minutes.
Every one that I witness changes every 15 to 20 seconds.
Maybe I see something that haven't but I haven't witnessed
it.
So we created some here.
I don't have an answer how to stop it because we don't
enforce it.
I will be very sincere with you.
I don't believe we do anyway.
Maybe there's an enforcement that I don't know about.
And it just has to have an ending.
Neighborhoods should be left and signs should be put up for
masses to see.
The people should have the right to -- your argument has a
lot of validity to it, that the sign may show the direction.
But so many of them in one area, once you have one, two or
three, you will have 5, 10, 15, and that whole area from
really Tampa Bay Boulevard to Hillsborough Avenue has an
enormous amount of medical practices as they should have,
fanned they all had a sign, what we would have there is
chaos, because everybody -- it's a distraction, health,
safety and welfare, in my opinion -- only my opinion -- to
things that are happening not only in this city but in
cities throughout this great United States that causes more
injuries and bodily harm.
That's just my opinion, sir.
And like I said earlier, I think you are one of the better
present errors, you do it with dignity and with respect to
everyone.
And therefore I have great doubt in voting in favor of this.
Thank you, chairman.
11:10:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions from council before we
go forward?
I didn't go to you, Mr. Pressman, because I figured there
was really no rebuttal for that other than what was already
presented.
Before I ask my question, I'll ask you, is there any
additional rebuttal that you have?
11:10:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt, I
would ask that council ask questions and give Mr. Pressman
the opportunity to give his closing statements.
If you ask your questions first.
11:10:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
This was already part of rebuttal but that's
okay.
We'll follow your guideline for now.
But he was already part of his rebuttal.
We have been asking questions during his rebuttal time.
Did we take up any of your rebuttal time?
I want to make sure we did not.
I'm asking you to interment your own rebuttal time to make
sure that we are following our own rules.
11:11:05 >> Well, I am asked questions that I might have to rebut
from that.
11:11:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I was just saying I didn't know if we
started on rebuttal first or is this is now your rebuttal?
11:11:19 >> I would -- I think there was opportunity to touch base
with the neighborhood, and Councilwoman has said go back to
VRB.
I think that would could potentially be a very positive way
to go.
I think responding to residents is always important, and I
would indicate as you know that's an option that you have,
and again happy to work with council in any direction.
11:11:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Are you requesting that we give you that
opportunity to go back to the VRB?
11:11:46 >> I'm not trying to wordsmith with you.
11:11:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
No, no, I want to make sure I am on legal
ground to interpret what you are asking.
My guess is that that would probably be our role in order to
remand it, if that's the pleasure of council.
11:12:00 >> Yes, if that's the pleasure of council we would be happy
to do it.
11:12:04 >> I think we are on the same page.
11:12:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Just as long as we are on the same page
here.
11:12:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I understand what is being said.
I don't think you can take two bites of an apple at the same
time.
If you only got one mouth.
And if the decision was made to come before us on
specifically what the item was, in here yes or nay and be
done with it, either Lee verse the VRB, or retain the VRB's
decision.
To continue to send things to the VRB -- and this has
happened before, not you, it just prolongs the agony not
only for the petitioner but for the neighborhood.
And I don't think that what was said that was brought into
that case earlier when the statements with respect made
which made your presentation to the VRB on the difference of
size.
You want to reduce it by half and that's what the
presentation was on.
That's what this is about.
So I just have a disagreements with continuing to send back
things to the VRB.
These all, Mr. Chairman.
11:13:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That's a point well taken.
I'm not sure legally what that process is.
If I could get the legal department to properly answer that
question concerning that.
And the question is whether or not we can either remand on
this de novo hearing, or have to go forward and make a
decision now concerning this hearing.
11:13:33 >> Todd Pressman:
Just a clarification, Councilman, the 6%
reduction by the VRB --
11:13:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And that's part of my question.
11:13:43 >> This is a much smaller apple.
11:13:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't think I have a right as an elected official to tell
you and your client what you should have done or had not
done when you made your presentation.
That was a decision that was made between yourselves and
your client.
I don't think I have the right to hear my case sending it
back when I gave you the direction of which way to go.
That's just me.
I'm not a judge and I'm not a lawyer.
Thank you very much, sir.
11:14:12 >> Paul:
I believe in answering your question, I will read
the relevant portion of the code.
It might not help.
11:14:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That might not help us.
11:14:23 >> Paul:
All right.
Just to start things off.
If you have a board decision, and cutting down a little bit,
this is hearing before City Council, going halfway down,
after reviewing the board decision of the board and hearing
evidence and testimony can either affirm the board's
decision, may remand the matter back to the board for
further proceedings with direction how the board failed to
comply, with the standard of the code, or may overturn the
decision of the board.
11:15:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So the only three choices are remand,
approve, or --
11:15:14 >> Approve, overturn.
Remand with direction how the board failed --
11:15:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And because this is a de novo hearing, we
are hearing evidence that's different than what was in front
of the VRB.
By what petitioner said, I believe what staff heard
previously.
11:15:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Let me just say you can undertake new
evidence.
I think it would be helpful to hear from Mr. Cotton with
regard to in effect, council, what you have heard -- and I
don't want to characterize this, it's just for the sake of
argument, a substantial change of what was heard before the
VRB.
That being the case, Mr. Cotton, if you could just inform
what would happen if there is a substantial change for a
petitioner who wants to bring something back to the VRB.
11:16:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Before you go, Mr. Cotton, I think we
understand what the process is in terms of what's next.
We have three choices.
It's the pleasure of council as to what those choices are.
Before we begin that, though, I want to make sure that Mr.
Pressman has every right to finish his rebuttal concerning
this.
So if I could.
11:16:24 >> Todd Pressman:
I believe I have said everything and I
would like the request to allow the VRB to reach out and try
to work with them.
11:16:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I think we have everything concerning what
the petitioner has in terms of his rebuttal and his
presentation.
What is the pleasure of council?
Let's go ahead and close the public hearing which would be
at the pleasure of council.
11:16:52 >> I Move to close.
11:16:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione, second
from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Mrs. Montelione.
11:17:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
I will move to have been remand this case back to the
Variance Review Board on the basis that the proposal that
was presented today is quite different than the original
application heard by the variance review board, and I think
it's the Variance Review Board needs to review what is
currently being requested by the applicant in a Variance
Review Board setting.
11:17:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mrs. Montelione.
11:17:34 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I would have to disagree with honor
council member on the basis that it is their presentation,
it is their, not mine, not city's, but their presentation,
and we can't hear anything that was not presented in the
Variance Review Board. So this is different.
It can't be different because we can only hear what was
presented in the Variance Review Board can either uphold or
reject.
And if it was to send back, it would be sent back, but way
hear -- maybe I heard wrong -- what was presented to the
Variance Review Board and what was presented to us is
totally different.
I can't understand that.
11:18:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
Do we have a second on that motion?
No second to that motion?
Okay.
The motion dies as a result of no second.
11:18:35 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I move oar make a motion that we uphold
the decision of the VRB 16-22 made by the Variance Review
Board.
11:18:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Maniscalco.
11:18:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
You have to say reasons, Mr. Maniscalco.
11:18:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I would direct your attention to section
27-80, the application of a variance power.
Would you please make a finding as to whether the applicant
demonstrated practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship,
and that the request ensures the public safety, health,
safety and welfare, that they are protected?
Can you make a finding as to whether those criteria were
met?
11:19:16 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I see that the alleged hardship
criteria was not met, therefore the denial.
11:19:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Second.
11:19:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Maniscalco.
Second by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
11:19:30 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with.
11:19:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Loan voting no and Reddick and Capin
being absent.
11:19:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
I think that we have some items that need to be removed from
the consent agenda, if any.
If I could get a motion.
I have a memo that was received from Mr. Reddick.
11:19:51 >>HARRY COHEN:
I move to continue number 70 to July 14,
2016 under staff reports, and for everyone, that's the
34th street safety improvement.
11:20:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mr. Cohen.
A second from Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion?
Okay.
Onto number 60.
Staff.
Item number 60.
11:20:12 >>BRAD BAIRD:
Public works utility services administrator.
I'm here on item 60, 61 and 262.
Regarding the Tampa augmentation project.
I want to first point out this is not the original project
that we put forth over a year ago.
This is a feasibility phase of a potable reuse project to
transmit reclaimed water from the advanced wastewater
treatment plant up to the water treatment facility along the
Hillsborough River.
It is a game changer that can resolve drinking wallet supply
problems for Tampa, and the region for many decades to come.
It will allow Tampa to control its own destiny, and finally
realize our original goal to use this water for a higher
purpose.
And with that, without going into details, on the project, I
will be happy to answer questions.
11:21:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Miranda.
11:21:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Sounds like a new movie you just made up
that everything is honky-dory and at the end everybody
drinks water.
That's a wonderful thing.
Glad to hear it.
I don't want to go through a lot of specifics, Mr. Baird,
but if you please, can you tell the general public that we
furnish water for about 600,000 people, what this will do
for the future use of water for the next 50 years, how much
water will be left for the City of Tampa to do it and other
areas that maybe selling some of that reclaimed water out of
the Howard Curren?
11:22:00 >> The first phase of this feasibility study would look at
20 MGDs, and then further look at 35 MGD and all the way
up to 70 million gallons a day.
So because we are looking at other projects as well, as you
are aware, region-wide, and Tampa Bay water is looking at
oats projects as well.
So this again will solve water supply problems for a long
time to come.
11:22:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I hope you and I are around to see that but
we are not going to be 150 years old.
But it's a great thing.
And the way you broke it down, if I may, 20, 35, 70, what
you are telling me then, or telling us, is that although you
have ample supply to sell in the future, if necessary, to
create revenue, and maybe create a department fifth
department and those four departments under the special act
that creates their own revenues and you can therefore use
that money for improvements in roadways and water, both
sanitary and drinking water, pipe replacement and so forth,
and have this city into the number one position maybe in
erica.
11:23:19 >>BRAD BAIRD:
That is correct.
Places us in an enviable position.
11:23:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Montelione.
11:23:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
So Mr. Miranda referenced a special act.
So this project and the template for doing this was
something that came out of Florida statutes that was
approved, not this one but I think last session?
11:23:56 >>BRAD BAIRD:
It came from that as well as where the whole
water industry is going, the whole water industry is moving
towards potable reuse across the country.
California, Texas, North Carolina and Florida.
Florida is a leader in reusing the water.
11:24:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So doing this would less ten strain on
the water that we take from the Hillsborough River, correct?
11:24:23 >>BRAD BAIRD:
Correct.
11:24:24 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And two of the projects we approved this
year and one we approved last year for pumping the blue sink
and the Morris bridge thing were done or planned because we
have to meet minimum flows, and part of meeting minimum
floss, if we are taking water out of the river in different
locations, we might not meet the minimum flows.
So the sink projects were approved for the Hillsborough
River if with we should ever need.
That and from what I understand from the implementation of
this project, hopefully we will never have to pump any water
out of either of those sinks because this is going to lessen
our need for taking water from the river, correct?
11:25:14 >>BRAD BAIRD:
That could the long-term result.
That is absolutely correct.
11:25:18 >>CHAIRMAN:
I wish we would have done this before the other
projects.
We would have saved a whole lot of money and a whole lot of
stress.
11:25:24 >>BRAD BAIRD:
Yes, this effort is a little bigger than
that. And I'm glad you brought that up.
Moving to a recharge recovery project is not only much more
economical, but it puts us in a position to help with
minimum flows much, much better than other projects would.
11:25:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So looking at the map that was provided
in part of one of the items, it outlines that area 1
wetlands location, and that is part of district 7.
So you can thank district 7 for giving you water -- and then
we have city park, Rogers Park, golf course, and Rowlett
park.
There's one thing that comes to mind, if we are using the
park and the golf course as a recharge, as an area of water
collection, rainfall and what have you, there is a lot of
fertilizer and a lot of chemicals that put on golf courses
that are somewhat in-depth knowledge of golf courses, and is
that going to put a strain on the treatment of that water?
11:26:53 >>BRAD BAIRD:
The treatment of the water from Howard
Curren?
11:26:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
If it's a recharge area, right?
So the rain falls on the golf course, the water from there
is at some point going to get to Howard Curren, right?
11:27:08 >>BRAD BAIRD:
No, it goes the other way.
So actually it would be the reverse.
This project would help that.
Yeah.
11:27:19 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I just saw the golf course on here, and
my mind was starting that way. So I'm happy to see this.
I'm happy that we will be lightening the load by the river,
and water supply is something across the country that is a
really in-depth concern.
Water wars are in the future, I think going to be the water
wars now that we are experiencing.
Thank you for this.
I know it was a long time coming.
11:27:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Miranda.
11:28:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I had this conversation, maybe 15 of
them, and you drove me to Clearwater many times, wanted to
drop me off on the bridge in Clearwater.
You and I had a lot of discussions on this.
And I understand what you are trying to do. The only
apprehension in my mind is once this water that you are
filtering down, what happens when it touches the bypass
canal, who is in charge of that water?
That's the only apprehension I have.
Because the way I read that law that water becomes water of
the state.
And if it's a by-product which we help change the law to
representative young, was very kind to do that for us, then
I become a little apprehensive, once that water touches the
bypass canal, is it water of the city or water of the state?
Do you have to have permission?
You know what I am saying.
11:28:56 >>Are Mr. Miranda, I knew would you ask that question.
11:29:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I thought you would.
And you have an answer for it.
11:29:07 >>BRAD BAIRD:
Because you asked that question, many times,
we added to this contract -- and if you will allow me, I
would like to read the paragraph and put it on record.
The regulatory issues associated with receiving credit for
reclaimed water released into the environment is
subsequently recovered as well water supplies will be
considered, this consideration will specifically address the
question of whether or not tap water will be considered
waters of the state.
Once released into the environment.
This consideration will include potential strategies of
designation of Tampa, waters of the state, implications of
tap -- excuse me -- was becoming waters of the state prior
to reaching the raw water intake of one of the regional
water supply utilities.
I want to also point out that the county is a step ahead of
us.
And they have received a letter from SWFWMD where they get
credit for that water.
And for anybody to be able to pull it out they have to enter
into an agreement with Hillsborough County and be
paid ---and pay Hillsborough County for that water to get
the water use permit.
11:30:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Excuse me, chairman, that doesn't supersede
anything we are going to do, right?
11:30:36 >> That does not.
11:30:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And that means Tampa always pretty?
11:30:43 >>BRAD BAIRD:
I think so but it also means Tampa
augmentation.
11:30:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions of Mr. Baird?
Okay.
Dough I get a motion to approve --
11:30:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move 60, 61 and 62 of the resolutions in
that order.
11:30:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
All right.
Item number 63, staff.
11:31:09 >>GREG BAYOR:
Greg Bayor, director of parks and recreation,
asking for $1 million for Kennedy and Busch Boulevard.
11:31:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions by council on this item?
11:31:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Can you Dell me what the Busch Boulevard
part of this project is?
11:31:34 >> At this point nothing has really been designed, so no.
We have the spend moan first before -- the Busch Boulevard
and interchange?
11:31:56 >> Correct.
11:31:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Just one thing I would ask is that the
innovation alliance, which I am vice chair of the advisory
committee, and you know that we had undertaken the services
of a design team some look at the interchange,
beautification, gateway, if you will, of 275 and Busch and
257 and Fowler.
11:32:20 >>GREG BAYOR:
Correct.
11:32:21 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So there are elements that may be out of
the scope and range.
It also -- FDOT had some reservations of hearing this
because of the TBX project, whether or not it goes forward
or not.
It may change the configuration of the highway.
So there are some considerations.
So I would just ask that you consult with the MPO and the
project that the MPO was overseeing.
11:32:51 >>GREG BAYOR:
The plans would go forward with the comp
plan.
11:33:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you very much.
Move item 63.
11:33:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
In second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you, sir.
Before we go to item 64, I am going to skim over to item 66.
Mr. Cohen has a predesigned time to leave because he's
leaving on an airplane.
I think number 66, we will go forward.
Staff, if you are here.
11:33:28 >>REBECCA KERT:
Assistant city attorney.
I am here on item 66.
As you will recall, item 66 revert back from City Council to
require a signage requirement to provide further notice of
an existing ordinance.
The existing ordinance prohibits towing from an
establishment that sells alcoholic beverages for off
premises consumption, till noon the following day unless
there's a particular order which in that case the car could
be towed.
I presented you a few weeks ago with a draft ordinance that
was an attempt to be responsive to City Council's request.
There are three main parts that City Council may want to
consider.
Number one is who is responsible for putting up the sign.
I have it as a property owner who has on its memorandums an
establishment that's licensed to sell alcoholic beverages
and has on-site parking because you have certain laws that
you have to deal with, and the person who has the licensed
establishment may not have control over the property.
So it's the property owner who has the establishment.
There's the language of the sign itself, which is contained
in the ordinance.
And then there is the placement of where the signs need to
be.
City Council, I believe, there was so concern that they
should be outside, have it placed outside.
I tracked somewhat the language whereof establishments, to
put their car can be towed notice.
It's not the exact same language because of details but it's
the same general placement.
11:35:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Mr. Cohen.
11:35:04 >>HARRY COHEN:
First of all, thank you very much for your
work on this item.
I think it's timely and will be very helpful to people as
they go about their evenings out.
When we met with B this in my office, you had talked about a
provision that would ask for signage to be placed every 25
feet on the perimeter of the property.
And I had mentioned I thought that was a little too onerous,
that perhaps as long as we were going to have signs at the
entrance and exits that that was sufficient.
And I didn't know what council's view might be on that.
11:35:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Does anyone have any questions concerning
this?
Mrs. Montelione.
11:35:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, one of the things that Mrs. Kert
and I talked about yesterday was some of the parcels that
contain multiple alcoholic beverage establishments also
contain a lot of businesses who don't sell alcoholic
beverage.
And some of the parking lots are very, very large, like
International Plaza.
Some of them are very small like some of the places on
Howard Avenue or in South Tampa.
So it's hard to make a "one size fits all" kind of
regulation.
One of the things that I said is we should make the
city-wide and on all parcels because it will be easier for
both the police department or the towing companies or the
business owners to know that there's one rule that covers
everything.
But after talking it out with Mrs. Kert would be extremely
challenging.
So then I went the opposite direction, and I asked her,
well, what if this applied only to businesses who sell
alcoholic beverages, whether it be a bar, a lounge or
restaurant, that is a single-use parcel?
So their parking lot is directly related to where that
person was drink, their inability to operate a motor vehicle
otherwise known as a DUI, is the direct result of their
patronizing that particular business, and it wouldn't be
onerous on other businesses who share the parking lot.
So if you have, say -- and I am going to make this up, I
don't know anywhere in the city that this happens -- if
there's a small strip center, and the only businesses in the
strip center is a large, you know, bar, a drycleaner, and,
you know, some other retail shop, a clothing store.
So the large bar may be putting a lot of strain on the very
limited parking, and then the dry cleaner and the retail
store have an issue in the morning because there's not
enough parking for their customers.
But we have limited it to a single use parcel, then that
wouldn't happen.
It's just an idea that I was passing around and thought it
might be a compromise that we could look at.
11:38:28 >>HARRY COHEN:
I don't agree with you.
I'll tell you why.
I understand what you are saying.
But I think that there are times when it's appropriate to
underdo, and there are times when it's appropriate to go a
little further.
The reason I think important to go a little further is
because what we are really, in my view, trying to prevent
here is DUI.
And so there really isn't a difference between whoa someone
is going to drive under the influence based on whether they
are drinking at a place that's free standing or whether or
not they are drinking at a place that has a lot of other
uses as well.
I understand your point.
I think it's more appropriate to ERR in the other direction
in this type of a circumstance.
Where I might not agree -- where I might agree with you
under different circumstance.
11:39:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
It, no I agree as well.
I think you are right.
I was just throwing that out there as something to consider.
11:39:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other comments or questions?
Mr. Miranda?
11:39:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'm sorry I had to do a couple of things
there when I left the dais here.
But are we talking about the alcohol that's secondary to
some other business?
11:39:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Item 66, sir.
11:39:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
66.
And I understand what both my colleagues have said, from way
heard.
But, in fact, we liberalize these laws so liberal that the
other day my suit came out of the dry cleaner's drunk.
Because everything, you know, accessory use.
It's a disguise is what it is.
It really is.
When you look at it realistically, it's a disguise.
You want an cigar bar, you don't even have to drink the
drink.
You smoke it.
And you can put that -- less than 20 grams of something
else.
And could be high.
For $25 they give you a 6-pack to go home W.it's so liberal
it's ridiculous.
So you either have the laws or you don't have the laws.
You create a special use to one item.
And if that change things, then the city has to be
protected.
The people have to be protected.
Don't cover it up with excuses.
Fact is a fact.
That's just me.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:40:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Capin?
11:40:54 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
And I believe that it was well taken what Mr. Cohen said,
that this is to help protect the public by keeping people
who overindulge on something that is a legal substance.
And finance we don't want, we can always go back to
prohibition, and we know how that worked. So people need to
take responsibility.
We try to do the best we can.
And I do believe this is a safety issue, a public safety
issue.
So that's my view on it.
11:41:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions or comments?
11:41:32 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Quickly, if we can present one --
prevent one death, one accident, then it's a win.
And that's the way I see it.
So it's a move in the right direction.
And I think it will be very beneficial.
11:41:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And I have one comment before we go forward.
I take what Mrs. Montelione loan said to heart.
I think that's going to become a self-regulating type of
issue, especially with some landlords that have bars or
restaurants that are serving alcohol will essentially make
sure that those folks understand what the rule is and be
able to handle their own property as they see fit.
Because it's harder to kind of nuance this particular
ordinance, I think going forward with this one is probably
the best way that we can go at this time.
Okay?
Anyone with a second bite of the apple, if not, Mr. Cohen if
could you take the ordinance .
11:42:27 >>HARRY COHEN:
I would like to move the ordinance.
And I will read it.
And then I was going to ask Mrs. Kert between first and
second reading if you could tweet that language regarding
the every 25 feet, maybe remove that.
So I would like to ask the ordinance being presented for
first reading consideration, an ordinance of the city of
Tampa, Florida making revisions to City of Tampa code of
ordinances chapter 14, offenses, amending section 14-48
wrecker regulation, repealing all ordinances or parts of
ordinances in conflict therewith, providing for
severability, providing an effective date.
And making that small change between first and second
reading related to the 25-foot distance.
11:43:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Cohen.
I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
Any other discussion?
11:43:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I just want to thank council member
Capin.
I think she was the one who brought this up months ago.
11:43:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
Thank you.
All in favor of that motion there's on the floor, please
indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed? Thank you, Mrs. Kert.
We appreciate it.
11:43:33 >> Second reading and adoption will be on June 23rd,
2016 at 9:30 a.m.
11:43:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Before we go onto our next item, which is
number 64, Mr. Cohen, because of his time constraints,
wanted to make a couple of new business motions at this
time.
11:43:48 >>HARRY COHEN:
Just one actually.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate it.
I would like to ask that we invite Judy Lisi, president of
Straz Center, to appear before City Council on June 16th
at 9:00 under ceremonial activities to present us a state of
the Straz Center to talk a little about the Straz center
plan and also present her with a commendation recognizing
the center for their master planning project as well as
their unique role of economic driver and cultural to the
City of Tampa.
11:44:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Second by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you. Okay.
Item number 4. Staff. Number 64. Staff.
There's a bunch of people here for it.
No one knows who to come up.
11:44:40 >>JAKE SLATER:
Good morning.
I'm here to address any concerns or any questions concerning
the RFP for item number 464.
11:44:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions of Mr. Slater now?
Mrs. Montelione?
You had originally pulled it.
Do you have any questions?
11:45:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes, thank you.
A couple of things that I wanted to address.
And they all have to do with the process of how this
contract is awarded and a couple of the concerns I have,
because initially when we brought this up, I think it was
back in 2012, it was at the height of the foreclosures where
in the City of Tampa.
And you and I discussed everybody was surprised that the
majority of them were in district 7, because the mortgages
and the houses that they couldn't afford when the downturn
in the economy occurred, and we had quite a problem with
code enforcement and banks taking care of their properties
it, and the foreclosure process is so long, or was so long,
that properties were falling into disrepair.
The homeowners were already gone.
The banks didn't have possession yet.
So we fell into this spot where nobody was taking care of
the property.
And we came up with the registry, or you came up with the
registry, somebody came up with the registry, great idea,
let's go for the.
Since that time things have changed.
The economy is better.
Housess are being bought and sold and rehabbed, foreclosures
have gone down, and with we are getting a handle.
I think actually we are beyond the point of getting a
handle.
I think right now the market is stabilized.
Yes, there are still vacant abandoned properties around the
city.
Yes, there are still foreclosures happening.
But we don't see the level of bright in our neighborhoods
that we saw back then.
I know when we talked about that we were doing the work
in-house.
11:47:14 >> That's correct.
11:47:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And treading water wasn't even possible
because there were so many foreclosures and so many
abandoned properties.
We are no different time now.
I mean, I see driving around my district, I see it driving
around other parts of the city.
It's not the case.
So while I wish this RFP would have happened back in 2012,
because we would have really needed this service back in
2012.
Because your staff was inundated by the amount of work, and
I know Mr. Papy was really the one who bore the brunt of
this work.
But we are not there now.
And there's one part of the contract on page 7, item 3.7,
financial matters and auditing.
And this is from the RFP.
The successful proposer will be permitted to retain 50% of
the 115-dollar fee for the operation of this program.
Not to ever exceed 500,000 in one fiscal year.
50% is a lot to give up.
And I just don't know that at this point in time we need to
go outside, give up half the amount of the fee for a problem
that I wouldn't say doesn't exist anymore but a problem that
is not at the stage that it was when this was thought of as
a solution to the amount of work that your department was
experiencing.
So, you know, that's my concern, is that I am not sure that
outsourcing this work is what we need to do now, especially
when we would be giving up half of the fee that is on the
table.
11:49:22 >>JAKE SLATER:
Back in 2012-13, we had almost 4,000
registered foreclosed properties, and the ones that were not
registered was over 4,000.
So together you are talking about 8,000 properties in the
City of Tampa.
Currently we are about -- the ones that paid for the
foreclosure registration were about 1200 paid.
Unpaid we have light around 2100.
Just as you mentioned, we had one person doing this, and
again the foreclosure registration process, there's a lot of
moving parts.
Registration, deregistration, keeping up with the banks,
making the contacts.
What happens if you don't pay us?
What do we do?
Well, in the ordinance we can issue a civil citation.
Is it effective?
I have to say no.
Because Bank of America, a civil citation out of California,
probably not going to get a lot of response.
But I can tell you that I am prepared to act in the best
interest of the City of Tampa.
We can proceed.
We can move forward.
Either -- with either of the options.
I am prepared to do it either in-house and continue to the
best of our overall abilities, or we can go forward with the
RFP.
11:50:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Montelione, you have the floor.
Are you sure you don't want to continue with the floor?
11:51:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'm fine.
Either way you want, Mr. Chairman.
11:51:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, I would just say that maintaining
it in-house is the direction I would want to go.
And we have other departments where collection is an issue
and we have discussed that here as well.
With other fees.
And we have gotten a handle, again code enforcement, it's
not just foreclosed properties where we have fees that go
uncollected, and I have had years worth of discussion, a
number of hours of discussion that Mr. Mueller and I have
had, you and I have had, you know, have talked about how to
collect that money.
Many of the code enforcement fees are not just banks that
may be in California but they are investors that may be
around the world.
So hiring a collections company, going and maybe giving up a
percentage of what the outstanding fee is -- and we are
talking sometimes tens of thousands of dollars for code
enforcement violations, you know, when they are wracking up
100, 200 a day.
I think that we could be go the same route with the
collections here as turn it over to a collections company
once the civil citation is issued and take that burden off
the city.
But I think the numbers you quote for 4,000 and 2100 is
huge, huge difference than what it was before.
11:52:52 >>JAKE SLATER:
You are right.
11:52:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, chairman.
I believe the first time I heard of this registry was when
council chairman Tom Scott brought it up.
I might be incorrect, but I believe that's the first time I
heard about it when he was chairman of this council years
back.
He had brought that up some time ago.
11:53:12 >>JAKE SLATER:
That is correct, Mr. Miranda.
11:53:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And the cost of operating this to one
person, is it costly?
Well, it is and it's not.
Let me explain that.
If you have a dollar and you try to work on that dollar from
in-house, and what the costs are to determine what you are
going to receive back, there's a cost.
If it's done on a 50 percent basis not to exceed 85,000, the
first year, that's the only year you have a guarantee, if I
recall.
11:53:46 >>JAKE SLATER:
That is correct.
11:53:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
After that you get what you get out of
that 50%.
Then the actual cost is money that's created by them finding
it, and the collection money coming in.
That's a process which is collected.
I correct so far?
11:54:01 >>JAKE SLATER:
That is correct.
11:54:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
So therefore it's a consideration that
you can have it both way was, but I think that -- and
although things are getting better, who knows what tomorrow
holds?
If you are prepared do something today, you don't have it to
gear up again for what could happen.
And what happened before could happen again.
I believe we are living in somewhat a false economy.
People who were making 20, $30 an hour making some less that
now in their new position.
So everything is relative to the time in history.
And I think it would be better prepared to handle this so
that your department can handle it much more effectively as
was done in the past, not that was ineffective, but more in
a professional manner so the moneys collected and to divvy
up, and you have an outside auditing company look at
those -- and everything is public record.
And you can't hide anything.
And, therefore, confidentiality is not -- it's moot.
Public record is an audited part, if I remember part of that
contract, therefore, I have to say that I am not opposed to
your presentation and what to do in the future.
11:55:10 >>JAKE SLATER:
One of the points that I want to bring out
is that the City of Tampa is one of the only -- it shouldn't
say only -- one of the few large metropolitan areas in the
State of Florida which does the overall foreclosure
registration problem sees internally.
We are about the only ones that I am aware of.
We have done a lot of polling, a lot of talking, a lot of
reef searching, and we have done a pretty good job, and I am
awful proud of the staff members.
Remember each of the foreclosure cases is a code enforcement
case.
We have to go out.
We have to spend.
We have to.
MOTION MAKER: Sure the properties are kept up.
So it is a costly thing.
It is.
But overall, we have dawn pretty good darn job and awfully
proud of the staff members.
But I'm in a position whatever input council wants to do, we
can take the ball and move it forward in the most overall
professional manner.
11:56:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions or comments?
11:56:19 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
How many foreclosed properties?
11:56:21 >> Right now we have 1800 that are registered and paid.
We have currently the amount of ones that are foreclosed and
not paid, 2189.
So you add those together you are talking 3, 3,000, 4,
4,000.
11:56:38 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Can you handle it internally?
11:56:41 >>JAKE SLATER:
A difficult question.
We would do our best to handle it internally.
We could dedicate staff.
We have done a pretty good job.
I think the point that the Councilwoman made before, I wish
we had the RFP back in 2012, the 2013.
I do.
What I would like to see us try for a year, see how it works
out, see what the results are.
I don't have any basis.
We haven't had any help.
We haven't had any help in that behind.
We won't have it a lot of staff members that involved with
the ones that are unpaid.
I'm not saying all those are going to pay us.
Again that's a soft overall number.
These not a hard number.
We could do it internally, yes.
Will we get the best overall results?
I can't tell you that.
11:57:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Second sound?
11:57:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, trying it out for one year sounds
like a good proposal, but it's also the year that we are
guaranteeing $85,000.
With the numbers of -- that you quoted in the nonregistered
properties, or what is registered, what isn't registered,
how does the math work out?
Because when we talked yesterday, I don't think we talked
about the numbers of outstanding --
11:58:27 >>JAKE SLATER:
I can't guarantee hard numbers that are
going to pay us.
I wish I could tell you that.
11:58:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And that's another concern, is this may
cost us money in the first year.
And 85,000 is not a small chunk of change.
11:58:45 >>JAKE SLATER, no it's not, Councilwoman.
11:58:47 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So if we have only, you know, 12 --
well, not counting the ones that are already registered,
because they are registered, they are paid, they wouldn't
count.
So just the unregistered number.
11:58:58 >>JAKE SLATER:
About 2200 that foreclosed and not paid.
11:59:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Foreclosed and not paid.
So 2200 times the fee.
11:59:08 >>JAKE SLATER:
125.
11:59:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
125 minus 50%.
All right P.divide that in half.
11:59:16 >>JAKE SLATER:
The current contract payment is 45%, 55%.
55% to the city.
45% to the vendor.
11:59:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
Is that in the proposal?
Because that's not way saw on page -- what is it, page 7.
11:59:36 >> If I could, according to the resolution that is presented
to us is to retain up to 50% of the $125 fee.
That's what it says.
11:59:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
But just doing the math it doesn't seem
to come up to 85,000.
And as we move forward -- and I agree with Councilman
Miranda.
We don't know what the market is going to bring.
I mean, right now, it's just my take on it is we are not
overbuilding single-family residences right now.
We are overbuilding multifamily residences.
Now, I lived through the market when we overbuilt office
space.
And downtown was partially empty.
But nobody knows what the market is going to bring.
There are economists who predict that we might see another
bubble, and I don't know if it's going to be add bass bad as
the one we came through but I don't know what will happen in
2017, and in 2017 is when we are going owe them $58,000.
So sure, had I want us to be ready when the bubble happens
again but I don't want to spend money needlessly in 2017
when I don't think we are going to have another crash like
we had before.
And with those numbers that you are quoting, I don't see the
math working out.
12:01:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Miranda.
12:01:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you for the prevent fine
presentation.
The item that I see, a little different in my math, I would
calculate that the collections should be about 160,000.
Up to 200,000.
That's my calculation quickly.
12:01:18 >>JAKE SLATER:
That's the numbers that we talk about, up to
200,000 mark.
12:01:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And I am going to the 160.
At that, then you have to add on the cost of some work by
city staff, employees of your office, these not considered
in the 50% shared.
You add that back, you will exceed what you get if you do it
the way you are presenting it now because the employees
could be used for something else to save the time and duties
of the city that maybe find out what's going on and take
pictures and more pictures and more cases being developed by
people who are building multifamily units and single-family
housing.
That kind of stuff.
And maybe check on signs that are being, you know, not five
minutes but every 15 seconds.
So I have no problem with it either way.
But I think for one year we could try.
And I think any loss at all would be minimal.
That's just the way I figured it out.
Maybe I'm a little wrong.
I'm not.
Thank you, chairman.
12:02:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Before we go forward I have some questions
myself but co-I get an spendings of time?
30 minutes?
Hopefully we will be done before 30 minutes.
I got a motion from Mrs. Montelione.
Second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor? Any opposed?
Okay.
Mr. Slater, a couple things.
Under the RFP, it was under the guise of 115-dollar fee
versus what we have in our proposal which is 125.
Why the difference of ten dollars on that fee?
12:02:51 >>JAKE SLATER:
The total amount of fee is $15.
There's a ten dollar admin fee that goes into an overall
separate account, and then the fee itself is 115.
Plus a $10 admin fee.
So the funds that would be split would be 115.
12:03:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
It's not clear because the way the
resolution reads is 125.
And so I am in a little bit of confusion because I looked at
the RFP and looked at the resolution.
12:03:23 >>JAKE SLATER:
You are correct.
I'm not sure of that myself.
I don't know whether the split would be the 125 split tore
115 split.
12:03:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
It does make a small difference.
When I saw that, it made me wake up and I felt, like me ask
that question.
12:03:42 >> I believe it's a 125 amount.
12:03:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
As part of the RFP, and I am going to try to
pick your brain a little bit to remember because we have had
discussion beings this before, which is the essence of what
we were trying to do was, A, the workload that you had on
your folks in order to actually change after who actually
owned the property now, because of the way that the economy
collapsed, there were a lot of companies that were buying
loans that now will be were selling those loans during the
course of time.
And so it was hard for us to figure out who actually owned
it and if they owned it how we can get in touch with them,
and after getting in touch with them making sure they
maintain those properties. So that was a three-step
process.
In order to make it easier for you as the head of code
enforcement to say, hey, listen, we have this under control.
Isn't that correct?
Isn't that what we were trying to do from the very
beginning?
12:04:44 >>JAKE SLATER:
That is correct.
12:04:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Now the RFP indicates a couple of things.
When I looked at what you were requesting, you were
requesting something a little bit less than what -- it's a
little confusing, the RFP.
And I have to say because of some of the specifics that are
part of the contract, but some of the generalities that
parted of the RFP.
So I got a little confused on it because it sounds like on
the RFP that all we want is somebody to put a registry
together of these foreclosed homes, whereas we actually want
somebody to go out and get some of those dollars that they
job to us for having been foreclosed and not maintaining
their properties.
Is that correct?
12:05:25 >> That's correct.
That was an important part of the RFP, yes.
12:05:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I mention that because as part of the RFP
and part of the contractual process, one of the things that
we request is that they have some experience whenever
municipalities of 300,000 or more in doing this type of
work.
And from what I have been able to see as part of the
background material from the awardee, I don't see that.
I see primarily a company that does a lot of business with
property appraisers offices across the country, very little
in terms of municipalities.
I did some -- when I looked on the website I found nothing
about what they either put in the proposal or that they have
the experience of doing this type of work.
So, in fact, the only city that they have mentioned is Ocoee
which believe me is not 300,000 people and they would be
very shocked -- 300,000 person city.
So I am a little confused as to what qualifies for the
reference and what is considered what we want from somebody.
Because we don't want somebody to just tell us who is there.
We want somebody who is going to go after the money.
And that's a big issue for me.
12:06:41 >>JAKE SLATER:
I understand.
I know that the evaluation scoring committee had a
presentation by both vendors.
I was float on the team.
12:06:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Which is very important, by the way, and
thank you.
12:06:57 >>JAKE SLATER:
I was not involved with that at all.
I can ask Sal to come up and give you some background on
what was presented as their overall type of experience.
But I was not there in the room.
12:07:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
And you are smart enough to bring your staff here to answer
a question that you don't know the answer to.
12:07:14 >>JAKE SLATER:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
12:07:16 >> Sal Ruggerio, neighborhood empowerment.
When they did the presentation, when they came in the room
and showed us exactly washing they could do, we felt very
comfortable with the company that won.
They were, number one, they developed a program that was
comparable to what is being used right now so, that the
companies wouldn't have been any learning curve, they could
jump right in and register.
Number two, their split for the city was favorable to us.
Number 3, where they are adaptable to change.
Anything that we want to do, they are not opposed to doing.
12:08:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If I can interrupt you just a second.
The question is not some of the things that you just
mentioned, but about the experience in terms of the
collection portion of it.
That's specifically what I am asking.
12:08:18 >> In our opinion, we felt, you know, that they had TFR
electronic experience to do the job that we were asking them
to do.
In my opinion, they dealt with some property appraisers'
office, and to me that showed me that they knew the process,
they knew exactly what to do.
It didn't really require that they had experience with
people with 300,000 or more population.
It came in and they were comfortable, and they showed us
exactly that.
Their experience with their I.T. people, they could adapt to
have what they needed to do and be fine.
12:09:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
The only reason I asked the question is
because it's part of the RFP.
None of us up here wrote the RFP.
So that's why the question is there.
12:09:15 >> Right. In my opinion, it wasn't a deal breaker to say
that.
They don't have in a experience with population over
300,000.
To me, there were other factors.
12:09:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
And that's why I wanted to make sure we clarify.
Because if collection is an important part of this, which I
think it is, and it's the ultimate goal, which is to take it
out of your hands, fur going to let someone else do it,
let's make sure we get some dollars out of it.
Now, about that particular aspect of it, I am a huge
believer in paying contingency fees to people who are going
to do jobs.
And being an insurance agent I get paid based on way do for
people and I get paid a commission based on that work,
meaning if I don't do a good job I don't get paid, and I am
a big believer from that.
So I don't know why there is a minimum amount in here -- and
again, this we are paying for someone to create something to
meet our need and we are paying it up front because they
don't want to do it on contingency, then I totally
understand.
And it sound like that's what this is, personally, based on
both how it's written and also in terms of subcontracted
ount that we have.
I believe that that's exactly what you are diagnose.
Whether knowingly or unknowingly, I think that's what's
happening.
I don't support something like this because I do believe
whereby it's totally doing contingency.
If we are going to let someone else do our stuff, let them
work hard and let them do it and slow the results in the
moneys that we receive back.
They get paid a certain amount and we do, too.
I prefer to have it like that, because the way it's written
now I don't like that, and I am not going to support that
with nab there. So I just want to make sure.
I want to get everything clear, want to make sure we get the
best contract as possible.
I am a little bit uneasy with that portion of it.
And that's part of the reason why I am not going to support
it.
There are any other questions or comments regarding this?
Mrs. Montelione.
12:11:16 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm glad that Mr. Ruggerio is at the
microphone.
Everybody on that team, and Mr. Mueller who is here in the
audience, scored it evenly with varying degrees in each of
the categories, but the total points it was dead even.
And Joe Papy, there was a 15 point spread, with Camille
Federich, who is, I believe, with CNI, she's retired now, is
a ten point spread. That's probably why she's not here.
My point was that everybody was either even or very close in
their scoring.
But you had a 40-point spread in your scoring, which was
interesting to me, because looking at everybody else being
even.
I am disappointed to say that for minority and WMBE
participation, which you know I am always looking out for,
Mr. Spearman is shaking his head back there because he
knows, is zero.
So I am disappointed in that, that there was a zero score in
that for both sides, for both of the responses.
But the 40-point spread kind of stood out to me.
And the biggest, I think, was in the first category.
And when you are saying that they met, you know, the
requirements of the ability to do the work, Mr. Suarez
pointed out the size of the cities.
But one of the requirements is knowledge of the banking
industry, and one of the things that you pointed out was
that they have done other registries before.
When I looked through their response, it was construction
services, permitting, it was property appraiser fees,
catalogue, so there's not a lot of banking.
And when we are chasing after banks and you have the federal
banking regulations, that would be an important thing for
me.
And I didn't see that in their background.
And you scored them the highest on that category.
12:13:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Miranda.
12:13:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, chairman.
Calculating these numbers if it is a 125 and 50-50 split I
would say you need approximately 2900 of these so-called
unfortunate circumstances out there, because then you go to
6250 times 2903 times 30 will give you about $93.70 split,
and so you need close to 3,000 to have a little cushion to
make sure it doesn't cost anything the first year.
But a one-year operation fur going to lose something is
going to be minimum because you already said you have about
that many on the books, and books that haven't been updated.
I think you are in reason that the costs are going to be
net, neutral to both sides, and therefore I am not against
what you are saying.
12:14:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions of Mr. Slater?
Okay.
Is there anyone that would like to move that resolution?
12:14:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I move the resolution 64.
12:14:51 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Dough I have a second?
Motion from Mr. Miranda.
I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that res motion?
Any opposed?
Nay.
12:15:01 >>THE CLERK:
Motion fails with Capin, Suarez and Montelione
voting no, and Cohen and Reddick being absent.
12:15:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you very much.
We have item number 68 which is a first reading
consideration.
Mr. Slater is here.
12:15:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Do we give direction to do it in-house?
It's a 3-2 and I don't want to belabor this thing forever.
But I move to have the direction to the city to continue
doing in-house collection of these fees.
12:15:39 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Second.
12:15:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mrs. Capin.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Okay, Jake, number 68, sir.
12:15:51 >>JAKE SLATER:
We are here to talk about the rental
inspection program that we have been working on for the past
several years with our friends over at the greater Tampa
Realtors association that I believe was here earlier this
morning under public comments.
We feel very, very strongly that this is going to provide
with us the best overall use of our resources, actually
target the blighted areas, the problematic landlords and to
do the best jobs for the citizens of this great city.
We have worked hard on this.
We have spent a lot of time talking about chronic offenders
and chronic violators and repeat violators that really cause
us a lot of problems.
And we do have some things to work out in regards to
standard operating procedures.
Those types of nuts and Bolts that we assured, our overall
friends at the realtors association that they would be part
of that overall discussion.
And again I think this is a win-win situation for the City
of Tampa and also for the realtors and the property owners
because we are devoting our overall limited time and
resources to go after the problematic landlords that cause
the majority of problems in the City of Tampa.
12:17:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions plaintiff slater?
12:17:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I am so happy this -- that this is
finally moving forward.
I have lost track of how many years it has been that we have
been working on this, but thank you thank you very much.
Thank you, Mike, for being here in support, the realtors,
many of us have spoken with not just did leadership of the
realtors organization but with rank and file members, with
city staff, and I think that it is a testament to Ohio we
are able to work together to finally come to resolution, and
happy to do this.
12:17:45 >>JAKE SLATER:
I could not be more happy.
We have a great partnership with them.
We have learned from them.
They have learned from us.
And there was compromise.
12:17:56 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I think back when we talked about this, I
mentioned that my husband was a real estate broker, and how
important it was to include them in the conversation, and I
commend you and the staff and the board of realtors for
working this out.
It really is a testament to how good your staff is.
Thank you.
12:18:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other comments or questions?
Mrs. Montelione, would you take number 68 for first reading?
12:18:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Certainly.
Let me turn the page here.
No offense to those who love chopped liver.
I present an ordinance for first reading consideration, an
ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida relating to the
rental certificate program making revisions to the City of
Tampa code of ordinances chapter 19, property maintenance
and structural standards, and chapter 23.5, supplemental
enforcement procedures, amending section 19-5, authority of
the director deleting division 2, certificates, inspections,
creating division 6, rental certificate program sections
19-105 through 19-125, amending section 23.5-5 schedule of
violations and penalties, repealing all ordinances or parts
of ordinances in conflict therewith, providing for
severability, providing an effective date.
12:19:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione, a second
from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
12:19:34 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And thank you, Mr. Mueller, if he's
here.
You put a lot of hours into that.
12:19:41 >>JAKE SLATER:
Thank you, council members.
12:19:49 >>THE CLERK:
Second reading and adoption will be held on
June 23rd, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
12:19:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Before staff leaves, code enforcement as was
pointed out by our legal staff that if something fails for
lack of four votes it comes back to a regular session for
legislative matter.
So if you are so inclined and want to continue to put this
on the regular agenda you can.
Obviously this has been a bellwether for you as to whether
or not you want to be go forward.
Mr. Miranda already talked about doing it in-house.
I assume it is their prerogative to whether they want to
continue and put this back on the agenda.
12:20:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Normally council action requires a vote of
four irrespective of what that action is, motion to approve
or deny.
So not having the vote of four in a legislative matter,
unless council wants to make a motion that gets you to a
vote of four, normally we would have to bring it back to a
point where the next council meeting, where you can get four
votes one way or the other.
12:20:51 >>JULIA MANDELL:
City attorney.
I believe Marty has raise add very good point.
And because you have a contract from an outside vendor, I
think it is appropriate to roll over to a meeting where we
could obtain four votes in either direction.
12:21:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I move that we bring this back when we
have a full council.
I don't know when that will be.
I will be here next week during the evening session. I
don't think I will be here for the day session.
I have to do some work for the State of Florida.
12:21:27 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I will not be here June 23.
12:21:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
July, whatever.
12:21:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We will make an open ended motion if we
could.
Come back -- does that come back during the next regular
agenda time Mr. Miranda has made a motion concerning that we
have a full council.
I don't think that we can meet that motion based on the rule
saying that it comes back during the next regular session.
12:21:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Which would be the 23rd, the next
regular session.
12:21:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We will not have been a full council at that
time.
Be I guess my point before you go forward, Mrs. Montelione,
the rules say that it will come back.
Whether or not we have a full council does not matter.
So we come back at the next regular session.
We will deal with it at that time.
Thank you.
I don't think we need tore do anything in a positive way.
I guess could you rescind the motion.
12:22:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I don't think it matters.
We legally solve it now.
12:22:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Diabetes F any of the staff don't understand
what that means, see Mr. Miranda.
Thank you.
Next item up.
Number 69 we need to move to July 14th.
Motion from Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
Under staff reports.
July 14, 2016.
All in favor of that motion indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Now, we are on item number 72.
All other items have been moved through the addendum to the
agenda.
Item number 72.
12:23:06 >>JULIA MANDELL:
City attorney.
This is a request by the legal department to come back with
an ordinance which would provide the process for in the
event the city is to sell a parking garage that there is a
requirement of referendum prior to that sale occurring.
As I wrote my memo, I felt that I needed to get a little bit
more direction.
I think that it raises an interesting legal issue, as your
charter clearly provides that the determination as to
whether or not to enter into a contract for sale of any city
real estate falls squarely within your authority.
It is the administration negotiates, brings it to you, you
vote it up or down for whatever reasons you feel are
appropriate.
In essence what you bow be doing is delegating that
authority, that wife, back to the voters, which the voters
are the ones that helped to create your charter.
Whether or not legally that's appropriate in ordinance or
not, I think there is probably no really good answer on that
particular issue.
All that being said prior to moving forward, I maybe wanted
to get a little better understanding as to what council
would like to accomplish, and there Pa may be other
alternative ways to do that.
12:24:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I think as the maker of the original
motion, I understood what happened when we sold one of the
garages and what it cost the taxpayers of this city to
subsidize the parking for some time.
That's about even now, and I don't want to see that happen
again.
So if what you are telling me can't delegate, don't want to
do something we can't do. But should you need a super
majority to sell an asset of a certain amount of money?
12:25:05 >>JULIA MANDELL:
It is complete lit within this come up's
authority to make that ultimate determination.
I don't believe there's anything in the charter that would
prohibited you providing that what your process in selling
of an asset, or selling an asset which of a certain type, I
believe that's something that's within your bailiwick.
12:25:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
The reason I say that is the City of
Tampa is going to have enormous growth in the next few
years.
Whether we like it or not it's going to happen.
And I think it's a good thing for the prosperity of the
family, kids that coming back from school and staying here
instead of going somewhere else.
And I really believe that the downtown area and other areas
of town is where city garages are but primarily in the
downtown area.
And if we start selling these assets -- international not
saying it's going to happen -- but if we do we are going to
find ourselves on the short side of an obligation that we
should not be, and therefore I would really like to see --
we are not going to be here, most of us.
Certainly the mayor is not going to be here in the next two
or three years.
And I don't nobody what's going to happen but I want to make
certain -- want to make sure the assets are protected so
that the citizens don't have to pay for it twice.
And that's the reason that I say if it's possible to have a
super majority to sell an asset -- and I don't want to say
something like this, but an asset of $5 million or up,
something that has to be do with money, and not specifically
sole that it's guaranteed that the taxpayers are protected.
That's all I am saying.
12:26:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, I am in total agreement with what
Mr. Miranda has proposed.
I won't be here after November.
And this council, you know, we have talked about before, the
reasons why we do things is sometimes not a reflection of
the people sitting here, or the mayor sitting across the
courtyard.
It's because we are looking to the future, and we want to be
sure that we set framework in place for future generations
and future times.
So I would have agree with what he's proposing.
12:27:20 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
You are proposing and asking our legal,
it's a very prudent way to go.
So could we send it out and you come back?
12:27:34 >>JULIA MANDELL:
It would be appropriate for to you make a
motion to ask the legal department to bring back an
ordinance with what I hear you say the parameter of any
city-ole real estate asset, or all assets, however you want
to characterize it, real estate assets that also valued at
over $5 million, and that any of those assets that are going
to be sold be presented to City Council, City Council would
need to have a super jolter vote it to be effectuated.
12:28:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
She said it best.
12:28:07 >> Second.
12:28:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Diabetes you get that motion?
12:28:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I make a motion we approve everything
that the city attorney just said.
12:28:17 >> I am going to forget it as soon as I leave here.
12:28:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Save time and energy.
(Laughter).
12:28:26 >> we have a motion from Mr. Miranda.
We have a second from Mrs. Capin.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Okay.
Thank you, Mrs. Mandell
Before we go to item number 74, we have three minutes
according to my clock left.
I think Mr. Spearman is going to take a little more than
three minutes.
12:28:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Let's make it eight minutes.
12:28:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Do you want to make it till 12:40?
12:28:56 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
12:40, okay.
12:28:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion from Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mrs. Capin to add time up to 12:40 p.m.
All in favor of that motion? Any opposed?
Thank you.
Mr. Spearman.
12:29:10 >>GREG SPEARMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and council.
This won't take that long.
If we could bring up the Power Point, please.
We were before you not too long ago and you asked us to come
back with contractor operator parts store, and one of the
questions that Councilman Miranda wanted know is how much
this would cost the city or how much the city would be able
to charge for rent if in fact we charged to rent.
We are going to talk about that.
We are also going to talk about benefits of this contract
for the city in terms of operation.
And then we are going to talk about some of the metrics
before and after the contract was implemented.
Beginning with the first line.
We did talk with the real estate department, and they gave
an evaluation in terms of what the rent would have been, and
that would have been somewhere between 4 and $5 per square
foot, to the tune of 40 to $50,000. This is actually a
savings to fleet because that amount of money would have
been charged back by the contractor into the cost of the
contract.
So that's what that number represents.
Had rent been something that -- if the contractor would have
paid to the city.
Now, in looking at this contract in terms of the implemented
of parks, there are a number of entities in the State of
Florida that have an existing contract similar to the City
of Tampa.
Hillsborough County, city of Lakeland, city of OCOEE, Polk
County, city of Cape Canaveral, Florida, Sarasota, Florida,
Palm Beach, Florida, and one outside of the city, city of
Dublin, Ohio.
12:31:00 >> You meant Cape Coral, not Cape Canaveral.
12:31:03 >>GREG SPEARMAN:
That's right.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
None of these entities are actually charging rent in terms
of having a contact operated park to operate on-site.
When we look at the city old process and current process, if
you look at the chart before you, in terms of staff salaries
and benefits, we were paying $310,994. Under the COPS
contract employees provided by MANCON, 261,878.
In terms of the management fee, obviously the city didn't
have that, but with the contract there's a 60,631 management
fee being charged for management fee.
Annual bids before we estimated this contract, we had about
37 of those.
And now we are down to one.
When you look at administrative costs in terms of process
and purchase orders, invoices and checks, that cost the city
about $97,524.
So with this particular contract in place, we are talking
about 15-40 annually, one PO and one invoice per month.
In terms of the value of the fleet on hand when the city was
operating, a little over $268,000; with MANCON that's about
786,000.
In terms of the on demand available stock, in inventory,
with the city's process, was about 44%. With the contract
operated parts store with MANCON, that's about 99.57%.
And then the average expenditure for parts under the city
was about 28.60, and under the contract with MANCON, $26.21.
So when we looked at the overall benefits of having this
program in place, we have a reduction in number of bids,
purchase orders, invoices and checks, processed by the city.
We have an increase in on hand inventory available at no
cost to the city until the parts are actually used, so we
have nearly three times the amount of inventory on hand than
we had before the contract.
The demand rate is about 99.57% in terms of having parts
available. For anything that's not available, in terms of
stock items, 89% of the time we get that within one day, and
94% we get within 3 days.
We have an 8.04% savings in terms of the contract part with
regard to fleet.
Now, there's also one other thing I want to share with you.
There is a publication which is published in the May
23rd edition of Government Fleet and it talks
about ---this is from Ponoma county, California, outsourced
their fleet parts operation, and over a 5-year period they
saved $2.1 million.
And the savings came from procurement, inventory,
distribution, accounting, payment remittance, and also staff
cost savings.
And they quoted from any entities in particular, and
included Sarasota County, Florida.
They basically reported that they had a significant
reduction in wait time for parts in Sarasota County.
And a quote from the auditor says when parts management was
done in house, the fleet encountered challenges, related to
inventory, staffing problems, parts availability, parts
delivery.
All these problems went away.
And the city of Dublin, Ohio, they quote improved
productivity time.
Now because of the increased availability of the parts they
are able to repair their vehicle fleet a lot sooner.
In Palm Beach County, they not only reduced their budget but
they also increased efficiency throughout fleet operations
and in fact throughout the vehicles as well.
So under the past three years, under their contract, their
rate was 90.8% in FY 14, 89.9% in '15, 91.4%, in FY 16.
So all of these statistics from all of these entities
throughout the country and the operation of the contract is
right on target with the City of Tampa.
12:35:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Mr. Miranda.
12:35:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I really appreciate your report.
It's very nice to know what California is doing.
But we are not saving 2.1 million.
That's number one.
Number two, when you look at that, I can't compare the same
vegetables with a fruit, meaning that if in California they
saved that, and if I was to offer the same vendors that we
had free rent, I don't know what the savings would be.
I really don't.
Also, the counties with NAPA, Hillsborough County, 80% of
the parts that they ordered should be deliverable within 45
minutes. I don't see how in the world they can do that
because if you have a traffic problem and two or three
lights you are going to be much later than 45 minutes.
95% with NAPA must be delivered within 120 hours or five
days.
And different equipment at different sizes and different
weights, they have to be delivered within 156 hours or
roughly 6 days.
So I understand all that.
But, like I said, I haven't had the chance to go back and
review.
I will be getting with you, sir, on the cost of each
individual item so I can -- I'm from Missouri, I have got to
go see for myself.
So I will be going to the different battery companies,
different vendors, of radiator shops and the different
things and compare the price when I do my own Miranda audit.
And thank you very much for appearing.
12:37:11 >>GREG SPEARMAN:
Thank you, Councilman.
12:37:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That's what they call the Miranda rule.
(Laughter)
Do you have any questions or comments?
And if I could, Mr. Spearman, according to your graphic that
shows how much we are paying both in terms of management fee
and everything else, it's about 11,500 more than what we had
before.
Now, the way I read it is that $11,000 is to allow us to
have better access to more parts in a quicker manner.
That's the way I look at it.
And correct me if I am wrong; is that the way you all look
at it also in terms of the contract?
12:37:50 >>GREG SPEARMAN:
It's an efficiency improvement.
12:37:53 >> And then the up to $50,000 of lost rent, quote-unquote.
That is not included as part of any of those numbers there.
So you are looking at that 11,000 to the plus side, but then
you would subtract in your mind the 50,000, correct?
12:38:10 >> Correct.
12:38:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So there's a small amount of savings up
front on a year-to-year basis just on the management side of
it, the way I am reading what you have provided to us.
I just want to make sure.
I am reading what you are giving to us so I am not confused.
12:38:24 >>GREG SPEARMAN:
That's correct.
12:38:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
It's hard to oh do, to not confuse me.
Any other questions from council?
Thank you, Mr. Speerman.
All right.
We are at information reports and new business.
Mr. Miranda.
12:38:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I make a motion to present a
commendation to Viola Luke, of the city clerk's office,
retiring after 44 years of dedicated service to the City of
Tampa.
And that commendation to be prepared and submitted to her
here at this council chamber on Thursday, June 23rd.
12:38:56 >> Second.
12:38:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Anything else, sir?
12:39:05 >> No, sir.
12:39:07 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I have a couple of motions here, one that I
started earlier, have staff to provide how the moneys that
are coming into the land development -- I didn't write it
down -- to tell us how Jean Duncan -- yeah, the impact fees,
and how that is being spent, and how maybe we can use this
money to kick start the intersection of Gandy and Westshore.
12:39:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Mrs. Capin.
Do I have a second? Second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
12:40:03 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
July 14.
12:40:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Under staff reports.
12:40:08 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes, under staff reports.
12:40:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Anything else?
12:40:10 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
I would like to request Mr. Greg Bayor or representative
from the Parks and Recreation Department appear on June
16th City Council meeting to give an update on the
summer programs and the programs throughout the city, the
locations and hours of operation of the parks and pools that
will remain open.
12:40:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mrs. Capin.
Do I have a second? Second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
12:40:39 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
And the last motion is to have -- it may be
Cathy Coyle's business license department, the ordinance
which is 2011-124, which is a safety placard posting on
conditions that alcoholic beverage establishments agree to
and are listed on their site plan be posted.
And I want to get a report on where we are at, how many have
been -- how many have gone out.
And I would like that also on July 14 under staff reports.
12:41:17 >> [Off microphone.]
12:41:23 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I said July 14, didn't I?
12:41:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I think you did.
We have a motion by Mrs. Capin.
Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
Okay.
12:41:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
That's it for me.
12:41:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Maniscalco?
12:41:41 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Nothing.
12:41:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Montelione?
12:41:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you very much.
I have a few.
I am going to start out with probably the most -- first, I
would like to offer my condolences to the families of the
two individuals who died as a result of the -- I shouldn't
say as a result.
Let me rephrase that.
Who died while attending -- or just after attending the
sunset music festival.
It's very heart breaking when you lose a child.
And I can't imagine what that must feel like.
I would like to have assistant chief Bryan Dugan, fire chief
Tom Forward, and are the director of the Sports Authority
Eric Hart appear at our next council meeting, which is the
23rd.
I have already spoken to all three of them about this so
they know that I was going to be requesting this today.
I would like them to -- chief Dugan and chief forward to
provide an analysis of the events of last weekend, of the
two-day festival, the number of calls, as best they can
determine what those calls were attributed to, and the
impact on St. Joseph's hospital.
I think Chief Forward has a pretty good handle on that.
We should have all received an e-mail from one of the nurses
at St. Joseph's hospital.
And really look at how we can move forward to prevent these
kinds of incidents from happening again, to prevent deaths
or near fatalities happening at festivals, and when I talked
to them, drug use and music festivals have gone hand in hand
since there have been music festivals, I don't know how many
years ago.
So it's not that we could stop illicit activities from
happening at these festivals.
But I believe as a city what we really want is to reduce
harm.
So whether it's at this music festival or any other, you
know, music festival, whether it's a sporting event, or
anything that would draw a lot of people and ab companying
heat exhaustion, alcohol, possible drug use, that we need to
start looking at how we are doing the best we can to keep
people safe.
I read a couple articles of other cities who have taken
these steps, Seattle, Los Angeles, and the city in British
Columbia in Canada, to great effect.
So I would like to talk about best practices, and that would
be under staff reports on June 23rd.
12:45:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion from Mrs. Montelione, second by Mr.
Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Anything else, ma'am?
12:45:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
On a happier note, I would like to have
also on the 23rd of June to ask council for commendation
to Dr. Yogi Goswami on his induction to the inventor Hall of
Fame in the State of Florida, and have him come here in
chambers to receive that commendation.
12:45:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mrs. Montelione.
Second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Anything else, ma'am?
12:45:36 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Public service announcement.
This Friday, the innovation alliance will be hosting a
hack-A-thon as part of the national day of hacking, and this
time the purpose of this is called Gimme Shelter.
The teams will be working on technology improvements to help
the homeless, and it's something that as everyone knows, we
have a lot of improvements to be done in the area of helping
our homeless.
So I think they will come up with some pretty great
strategies for us to use, Friday at Crossover Church, the
kickoff I believe at 5 p.m., the Crossover Church on Fowler
Avenue just east of I-275.
And I would also ask the last thing is, I would like to ask
the clerk -- we have an agenda item.
It was agenda item number 65 today.
And the subject, how the agenda item was titled is not
really what the discussion which is taken place.
So I would ask that the subject of that item, because it has
been continuously, be changed to read that this is
concerning the changing the term "good faith effort" in the
minority business language.
12:47:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I apologize but I have a proposal question.
If the maker of the motion is not here concerning what the
thought process was, if you want to just add that on for
presentation, I think that would probably be more
appropriate.
The clerk is the one that goes through what we have done in
terms of our motion.
And I would like so guidance on that but I think that would
probably be more proper, Mr. Shelby, if she just wanted to
include that as part of the what the present would be,
that's probably more proper, don't you think?
12:47:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Well, council, frankly, it would be
problem but I understand protocol would be to hold it in
deference to the maker of the motion.
And I really can't speak to the merits.
But what you are saying, Mr. Chairman, with the maker of the
motion not being presented you have reservation about
changing the wording the way it appears on the agenda.
12:48:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Correct.
And that's the only thing.
I understand where you are going with this.
But I think that it doesn't necessarily -- I'm not sure how
we would change it because the clerk is the purveyor of that
information.
If there was a problem with the motion, and it was unclear,
I think the maker of the motion would be the person that
would have actually clarified that with the clerk.
That's just what I thought.
12:48:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
As a matter of fact there are some issues
I was going to bring up to you private reply with a special
called section because the wording of some of those -- the
staff relies on what is here.
If it's not necessarily clear to the staff, then sometimes
you have issues.
12:48:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Right.
I understand where you are going with it, Mrs. Montelione,
but I don't know how we do that procedurally because I am
not sure I would be comfortable with entertaining a motion
to change or to add.
I think that we probably would ask the maker of the motion
clarify with staff to make sure they come back.
12:49:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Right.
And if you indulge me for a second, I think that oftentimes
the subject of the agenda item is captioned out of the full
discussion and doesn't reflect sometimes what the core issue
is.
You know, the county does it very, very differently.
And there's a lot of times where we continue items, and we
continue items, and we continue items, and the item we end
up discussing in the end is -- has morphed and isn't the
item that we initially discussed.
So I think as --
12:49:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I don't disagree with your sentiment.
I don't disagree with the sentiment.
I'm talking about procedurally.
So -- I will send an e-mail to staff and to Mr. Reddick
concerning that to make sure that it's clear as to what
that --
12:50:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Not just this item.
12:50:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Well, in the future too,.
I think that's something we can work with the clerk.
Absolutely.
12:50:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
12:50:15 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Absolutely, I agree with that.
That has happened to me in the past.
I understand.
12:50:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Can I get a motion to receive and file all
documents?
Motion by Mr. Maniscalco. Second by Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion? Any opposed?
Anyone in the public that would like to speak at this time
before City Council?
I see no one.
We are adjourned.
(City 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.