Tampa City Council
Thursday, September 15, 2016
9:00 a.m.
DISCLAIMER:
This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete
accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of third
party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
[Sounding gavel]
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Tampa City Council is now called into order.
The chair yields to Mr. Charlie Miranda.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Chairman, it's my pleasure this morning
to have Mr. Steve Michelini come before us and lead us in
prayer.
Please stand for the prayer and remain standing for the
pledge of allegiance.
Mr. Michelini, thank you very much.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Good morning.
Dear Lord, in troubled times we turn to you.
We know the hate and anger is not your way.
We pray to you for your righteous glory to guide us, to help
us and to protect us.
Give us the strength to resist temptation and rather to
engage in truth, honor and?
You are our protector, our shield, our shining light.
We call upon you to exercise good judgment.
Help to us make honorable decisions in the face of
adversity.
We trust in you, Lord, to show us the way.
You are the beacon of hope in troubled times, the source of
our salvation, the kind and gentle light of truth.
We are humbled to speak your name except in reverence and
seek your blessings upon your people.
Let those of little or no faith feel your presence and love.
Help them to choose a life of hope and feel the spirit.
We ask for your gift of wisdom, understanding and appears as
the council deliberates on decisions brought before them.
We ask for your loving hand prove Texas to be extended over
all of our Armed Forces, the first responders, the police
and the firefighters, doctors, medical personnel, teachers
and this council.
Let us never forget their sacrifices are for the good of us
all.
Bless and keep them in your holy shroud of light over the
darkness and truth over deceit, honor over dishonor, good
over evil.
In your holy name, amen.
[ Pledge of Allegiance ]
>> Roll call.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: Present.
>>HARRY COHEN: Here.
>>GUIDO MANISCALCO: Here.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.
I need an approval of the addendum to the agenda.
If I can get a motion to that.
I have a motion from Mr. Miranda.
A second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
And the first item up we are going to do is our public
comment on any items that are on the agenda.
If there is someone here that wishes to speak before any
item before the agenda, except for those set for public
hearings, zoning and land use hearings, please come forward
at this time.
Please state your name for the record.
>> My name is Matt Florell here to speak about red light
cameras.
I would like to thank the members of City Council who were
able to meet with me on the subject.
And I hope all of you were able to take a few minutes to
read about the issues that I have identified with Tampa's
red light camera program.
In the e-mail I sent to all of you yesterday.
I want to speak for the record, I have never received a red
light camera ticket.
But I have been researching red light cameras for the last
five years.
I have read dozens of studies, reports and contracts,
reviewed hundreds of crash reports and red light camera
videos, as well as analyzing ticket data for tens of
thousands.
I can tell you without a doubt take that red light cameras
do not make roads safer.
Here in Tampa is the perfect example of that.
With the state report that was released earlier this year,
we learned that overall crashes went up 51 percent, more
serious angle or T bone crashes went up 142% and fatalities
also increased.
By any measure safety at red light intersections have gotten
worse since the red light cameras were installed.
If this decline was not enough reason to stop the program
consider the vast majority of the fines collected goes
either to state government in Tallahassee or the city vendor
in Arizona.
Only a small fraction of those millions of dollars collected
per year stays in our local community.
What little money does stay here in Tampa mostly goes into
the general fund, a large portion of which pays for the
nonvendor costs of the program, although we have no idea how
much that is exactly because of the administration hasn't
told us.
In the end, the bottom line is this.
We are spending millions of dollar per year out of our
community for a safety program that is not making us safer.
I ask that you please reject the new contract with ATS.
Let the cameras go dark in Tampa.
Thank you.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
Next.
>> Ed, Ed Tillou, Sulphur Springs.
Okay, I came prepared to speak my three minutes on a whole
lot of other things but that last comment I have to speak
about that.
I am a pedestrian.
I am on a lot of these streets.
There was a vast change once those red cameras went into
effect.
I don't know what the statistics are.
I'm just out, you know, feet on the ground, and I see the
difference.
In fact, there's a major problem at an intersection, and two
intersections actually on Nebraska and Fowler.
You have got to put them there, because the turning cars do
not stop.
They just come around the turn, and if anybody is there --
okay.
The other one is 15th street and Fowler, because I have
seen cars going through the red light at that intersection.
So, anyway, that's those.
What I came to speak about was there was a public
transportation meeting, and one of your members was
overseeing that, and actually did a pretty good job.
Ed Turanchik doesn't seem to want to run.
One of the things I gave out was a little freebie, and you
open it up and you say, wow, something about public
transportation.
And what it is, it's something that -- it won't come out.
Anyway, it's something that plugs into a car, a car plug,
you know, like your cigarettes and things if they still have
them.
But anyway, it's like wink, wink, you know, hey, use public
transportation, but we are giving you this thing for your
car.
I don't think public transportation can replace the car, but
it can substitute for a lot of use of the car.
And its use of the cars that generates the carbon dioxide.
I have this little thing about what happened years ago in
Brooklyn.
They moved a whole hotel that was about 400 by 200, and they
used four locomotives to move it.
And that's maybe something that could be done -- see, here
are the locomotives.
That's done for the a la carte pavilion maybe to get a half
million or million dollars into the pockets of the Shriners
while waiting to sell the land, because there's supposed to
be a pavilion built at this Westshore project.
And right now because the deal fell through with the a la
carte pavilion, the Shriners don't have money for their
hospitals.
So maybe to buy their a la carte thing and move it, because
these hovercrafts are the very important with respect to
Afghanistan.
(Bell sounds).
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, sir.
Is there anyone else from the public that would liking to
speak at this time to any item on the agenda that is not set
for public hearing?
Okay, I see no one.
Are there any requests -- yes, I know -- are there any
requests from the public for reconsideration of legislative
matters at this time?
Again I see no one
Before we go forward with the rest of our agenda, I would
like to acknowledge the class from Roman park, Mrs. Battle
is here with her fourth grade class.
Do you mind bringing these young folks up and just say who
they are, and come across the podium, if that's okay?
>> And I'm Ms. Battle.
>> You are not much older than the class.
(Laughter).
>> This is my second year here.
>> Okay, terrific.
And my son went to Roland park, it's a wonderful school.
I know the city attorney's children go to Roland park as do
the CFO's children.
Can I ask you a question, what are you trying to teach these
kids today about government?
>> Trying to show them how government works and we are
studying the local government, how City Council and how you
guys run your meeting at City Council.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Terrific.
Thank you for being here.
We really appreciate seeing you and all your children.
>> Thank you so much for having us.
>> Thank you for being here.
Okay.
Our first item, we are going to try to get to as quickly as
possible, which the first walk-on item on our addenda, Mrs.
McLean is here to explain why we have a walk on item
concerning this.
Go ahead.
>> Good morning, Mr. Chair, City Council members.
January McLean, office of city attorney.
I am here today to ask for your approval to consider this
walk-on item, which is a resolution approving an agreement
with the Hillsborough County tax collector office for them
tore do notice and collect for the recently adopted
stormwater improvement assessment.
We currently have an agreement with the tax collector, and
they have been providing the services for us, for our
service assessment, with the new assessment, we must execute
a new agreement.
And this is only recently come to light.
We have certified the roll to their office and we have been
in constant contact with them over the last 48 hours.
I do want to say a public appreciation to Emil Parker at the
tax collector's office, has been a huge assistance to my
office and to the stormwater engineering division.
I want to remind you that you adopted the resolution
2015-796, October 1, 2015, which indicated the city's
intention to use the tax collector to use the uniform
methodology of collecting the assessment.
At that point in time the improvement assessment was not
approved but subsequently obviously on September it was, so
we need this agreement at this time.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
Any questions for Mrs. McLean about it?
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Is there any additional charge for this
service?
>> It is the statutory charge that we have discussed
previously.
As in the agreement, it's per statute -- let me give you the
specifics.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Just so I understand we are paying for
the outfalls and drainage ditches, and this is an additional
charge for them to do the same thing?
>> Yes.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: What was the first one?
>> The exact same as this one.
It has not changed.
It is the tax collector will charge -- it's 2% of the --
here it is.
On an annual basis, we add a rate of 2% of the amount of
special assessments collected and remitted for the actual
cost of collection, whichever is greater, and that's
pursuant to section 197-252 --
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I may.
I'm sorry, I am not trying to embarrass myself or you or
anybody else.
What is 2% of the total in that 30 years?
>>JAN MCLEAN: For 30 years I don't know because it's 2% of
the amount of assessments collected and remitted so it
wouldn't be the exact same every single year.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand.
Escalating clause to be a certain point until it becomes
stabilized.
If I remember the conversation we had here some time back,
it was at the rate of $5 million for the total cost.
Something like that?
>>JAN MCLEAN: On an annual basis?
I do recall that, yes.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions of Mrs. McLean on this
particular item?
If I could get a motion.
Okay, Mr. Cohen?
>>THE CLERK: There is a substitute.
>> HARRY COHEN: Move the substitute resolution.
>> Second.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion from Mr. Cohen.
I have a second from Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda, Reddick and Capin
voting no.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
The first item up is item number 1.
It is our volunteer mutual aid agreement between the city
police department and law enforcement agencies.
Is there someone from staff?
I'm sorry, it is under Public Safety Committee.
The Public Safety Committee is our chair Mr. Charlie
Miranda.
Mr. Miranda, we pulled item number 3 for discussion.
If you could move the rest of those.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I move items 1 and 2, please.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Next up is our Parks, Recreation and Culture Committee, Mr.
Maniscalco is our chair.
Before you move those items, Mr. Maniscalco, we will have to
move items 4 through 6 and leave 7 out for right now.
Mrs. Montelione has a comment on number 7.
>>GUIDO MANISCALCO: Move items 4, 5 and 6 as well as number
8.
>> Motion from Mr. Maniscalco.
Second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mrs. Montelione, item number 7.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
Mr. Shelby, I believe on number 7, I have a conflict so I
will have to abstain.
My significant other, Josh geary, is employed by Josh
builders.
>> You believe this is a conflict of interest?
>> I believe it is.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
I will prepare the conflict for you to file your abstention.
>>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I would like to move item number 7.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Okay.
Next up is public works committee, Frank Reddick is our
chair.
>>FRANK REDDICK: [Off microphone.]
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion by Mr. Reddick.
Second by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor? Any opposed?
Finance Committee chair, Mr. Harry Cohen.
>>HARRY COHEN: Move items 19 through 26.
>> Second.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion by Mr. Cohen.
Second from Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Building, zoning, preservation committee.
Our chair, Ms. Lisa Montelione.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Move items 27 through 38.
>> Second.
>> Motion by Mrs. Montelione.
Second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Okay.
And our transportation committee chair is Ms. Yvonne Yolie
Capin.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: Item number 39.
>> Second.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion from Mrs. Capin, second from Mr.
Miranda.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Okay.
Next up we have items 41 and 42 -- excuse me, through 42.
If I could get a motion on number 40 to set a public
hearing.
Motion from Mr. Miranda.
I have a second from Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
All right.
Item 41.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion from Mr. Miranda.
I have a second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
And item number 42.
I have a motion from Mr. Miranda.
I have a second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Okay.
Well, the hour is at 9:25 a.m.
According to our cameraman's thing.
So we have public hearings at 9:30 that cannot be heard at
this time.
Trying to see if we can go to staff reports.
I think the red light camera discussion is going to be a
little bit of a longer one.
Maybe there is another item to go forward on beforehand.
Mr. Shelby, item number 55 was about the issues concerning
the charter review.
If you don't mind, we'll take up 55 at this time.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Martin Shelby, City Council attorney.
Item number 55, part A, we've received the revision.
That concludes my report.
(Laughter).
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Pretty good, Mr. Shelby.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
The only thing remaining, council, is the discussion of what
language would fit into section 7, the administrative
clerical legal support, which is actually part B.
>> Are there any questions from Mr. Shelby concerning this
item?
Okay.
Usually a very loquacious group.
We are a little quieter this evening.
Part 2 of item 55 concerns the issues on budgeting for our
charter review, because we took a vote, I think last week or
two weeks ago, I think two weeks ago, there is no report to
maintain.
That's something that's going to have to be negotiated with
the administration.
They were going to come back to us prior to our second
budget hearing, if I am not mistaken, concerning the amounts
that were requested by council.
Okay.
Any other questions or comments on item number 55?
Yes, sir.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to placing language -- and I
can come back with consent of council -- but do you want
language in there about administrative support for the
commission, by the administration, the meetings we would
have been having prior to the clerk of the city and the fact
that council does have money -- or rephrase that -- where
the council could choose or may choose to provide additional
support as needed for the support of the charter review
commission?
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay there, was a lot of stuff going on in
that sentence.
My guess is that obviously the clerk would always be the
area in which some of this discussion with charter review
would start.
I think the discussion that we had had to do with hiring
other folks in order to facilitate that charter review, not
only on the first time but for an ongoing part of it.
That's the reason why we had discussion about the $11,000
that was remaining from last year and whether or not that
rolled over, put it back in the budget, and whether or not
we were going to increase it up to 25,000.
So I think that was when the administration comes back we
have to have that discussion to make sure that we can get
that $25 that you by vote from council.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Council's pleasure then, consistent with
this discussion, I can bring back whatever council wishes,
the final version that includes language in section 7
consistent with what you said.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: I think that would be great, then we can
have the draft, and all of us can look at it and we can have
a discussion when the administration comes back for that
discussion.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Second reading of the budget obviously.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Right.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Would council want to set a date or keep
this in abeyance till when I have it prepared?
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Anyone want to make a motion to that effect?
>>LISA MONTELIONE: I'll make the motion to keep it in
abeyance.
>> Second.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion from Mrs. Montelione.
A second from Mrs. Capin.
All in favor of that motion indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Okay.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: All right.
Since we are still just a couple minutes early, I will go to
information reports and new business by council members.
Mrs. Montelione, do you have any new business?
Or do you want me to start on this end?
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Yes.
None at this time.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Maniscalco.
>>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I would like to present a commendation
to Lizette Rivera, Chef Inspired Popcorn company to be
presented at the ribbon cutting next Tuesday, September
20th. Rivera has been over 20 years in the insurance
field, was diagnosed was celiac disease, and could not eat
anything by gluten. Frustrated by a lack of snack options,
she searched all over for something simple but great
tasting. She turned a negative into positive when her
condition led her to a true snack popcorn.
Never satisfied with letting regular be good enough she
experimented at home with flavors for her and her family,
and Chef Inspired Popcorn was born.
City Council would honor Mrs. Rivera for entrepeural spirit
and for moving her home grown business from the county to
Hyde Park in the heart of Tampa.
It truly embodies what it means to start a small business
and reinvest in the Tampa community.
>> Second.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion by Mr. Maniscalco.
Second by Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor?
Mr. Cohen?
>>HARRY COHEN: I have a couple of items, Mr. Chair.
First of all, we did just pass the stormwater assessment in
the last couple of weeks, and I have been giving the matter
some thought since the vote, and I really think that for
this program to be successful, it is a multiyear,
multi-generational program.
I think it very, very important that council hear back
periodically from the administration about the details of
how they are spending this money.
Regardless of whether you agree with it or didn't agree with
it, the fact of the matter is the administration, and
subsequent administrations, are going to have money to spend
on stormwater.
And I would like to propose really two motions.
The first is to hear back from the water department and
contract administration as well as the legal department, and
also the budget and finance department, on October 6th
under staff reports to answer just the following question:
How do they propose to set up the structure by which they
are going to manage these projects and manage the moneys
that are associated with it?
What type of governance are they going to put over the
project?
Will the mayor's office have a representative that oversees
it?
I would like them to make a report of how they plan to
organize all this going forward.
So that is the first motion.
>> Second.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion from Mr. Cohen.
I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
I have a discussion at this time.
Mrs. Montelione.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
And I'm not sure if this is too soon and it's covered in
your second motion.
But I think you referred to it.
But if we he could be clear, it would be, I think, prudent
to have a list of projects of how they decided which
projects were going to be done first.
>>HARRY COHEN: Well, before we even get to that I want to
know how they are going about organizing the fact of doing.
This I just want to know what they are doing and have us
have the opportunity to ask them about it.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: I understand that.
And I think part of the -- at least my understanding of
organizing it is the decision-making process of how they are
organizing, to use your words, the project list.
>>HARRY COHEN: You are asking about the substance and I'm
really asking about the process.
But let's hold that in abeyance for just a moment.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: We are doing a lot of abeyance.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Anyway, we have the motion and the second.
We have other discussion on that particular motion.
Mrs. Capin.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: It's all good and fine.
But really, that should have been -- I discussed it with
them, asking them when -- how they are going to be spending
it, where -- there was no answer.
Really, that question that you proposed should have been
part of the discussion and answered to us before we voted on
this issue.
That's all I'm going to say.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Miranda, do you have a question or a
comment?
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: [Off microphone.]
>>MIKE SUAREZ: At the end of the meeting or end of this
vote?
Terrific.
>>HARRY COHEN: What I am asking for is an explanation of
the type of project management that they are going to put in
place to do this.
I want -- frankly, this is something -- my second motion was
going to be to here from them quarterly an get an update
once every three months on what they are actually doing,
because I think that long after we are gone, over the years
that this program is in place, council and the public are
going to need to keep a close eye on how it is progressing.
So this is not about the original substance of what was
done.
It's begun us being able to get information about what they
are doing, and how they are doing it, and giving us an
opportunity to hear from the public and keep this to be a
transparent spending of the money.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Capin, you have another comment?
>>YVONNE CAPIN: [Off microphone.] absolutely.
It should have been part of the discussion.
When you get $250 million, what are you doing with it and
how are you going to use it and where is it going?
That is very important.
And that was not discussed.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Anything else on this particular motion?
We have an editorial coming at the end but is there any
other discussion on this item?
Madam clerk, do you have the motion clear?
Okay, frisk.
We have a motion.
We have our second.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
>>THE CLERK: (Off microphone) Motion carried -- voting no.
>>HARRY COHEN: The second item is I think they should
appear quarterly in the first meeting of each quarter under
staff reports and give us an update on the program and we
will have a chance to ask questions as different items come
up.
I think as those of us here as we rotate off council it will
be very important for council members in the future to be
briefed and be aware of how this project is progressing in
the coming years.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
That is in the form of a motion?
And you say first quarterly.
What do you mean?
>>HARRY COHEN: I'm saying every three months starting in
January.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Just want to make sure.
>>HARRY COHEN: Under staff reports to council in the same
way that we get a monthly CRA update.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: I wanted to make sure it was the first
meeting in January would be that you are asking.
Then quarterly after.
>>HARRY COHEN: Yes.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: We have a motion from Mr. Cohen.
Do we have a second?
We have a motion from Mr. Cohen.
A second from Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor that motion?
Any opposed?
>>HARRY COHEN: Another item.
I want to make --
>>MIKE SUAREZ: I want to make sure there's no opposition.
>>HARRY COHEN: Another item I want to bring up, I know we
are having a noise workshop next week, and I wanted to ask
if EPC could be invited to come and tell us a little about
their noise enforcement program, how they view noise as a
public health and environmental issue, and be placed on our
agenda.
>> Second.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: We have a motion from Mr. Cohen, a second
from Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Anything else?
>>HARRY COHEN: I have a few forms to file from my last
meeting.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Terrific.
You're busy today under new business.
Mrs. Capin, nigh new business?
>>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes.
I would like to make the motion to present the following
Eagle Scout with commendations.
Patrick Danielson, Spencer Boyd, George Bentley, Nathanael
Seller, and Colton Fenley.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
Anything else, ma'am?
>>YVONNE CAPIN: That's it.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Reddick.
>>FRANK REDDICK: Yes, one item.
I am going to request a commendation to be presented to the
Mayme Harris Hargrett family.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: We have a second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Anything else, sir?
>>FRANK REDDICK: That's it.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, chairman.
I have a couple of small items that can be condensed into
one, to invite the Hispanic Heritage committee to announce
their annual event on October 6th, 2016, and the
Hispanic Heritage Committee to bring here and present them
with the commendation on October the 18th at the Tampa
Theatre.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: A motion from Mr. Miranda.
Second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Anything else, Mr. Miranda?
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.
On the editorial side, I'm not an editorial writer.
I don't.
I don't even write.
But one, when they gave you a map of the city, what was not
explained the timetable, they had some generalities.
I would imagine that Mr. Cohen in the discussion here, and
where the money is.
When you look at the impact when it says financial cost, and
all things that cost money, it mentioned 251 million.
What I would like to be see done and have this council vote
on it is to somewhat change those things so that the public
gets a true feeling of what the real costs are.
It's not 251 million.
It's 251 million without the interest.
And that cost would be something close to 500 million or
half a billion on that item.
Not specifically on that item but on all items that come
here, it is a financial impact, it should include the
interest so that the public understands what we are doing.
That's number one.
Number two, when you look at the news here lately about
St. Pete with 70 million gallons going over and Tampa with a
small amount, and thank God we had the foresight years ago
under another administration to do what we did to facilitate
so that very little or no untreated water goes into the bay.
And I'm not after the mayor of St. Pete.
He's got to do what he did.
He didn't start this.
40 years ago.
He inherited it.
However, when you look at St. Pete and Tampa, you want to
put another stadium in St. Pete?
And you don't have a sewer system?
That's real smart.
Our CIT tax ends in 2027.
When it was passed, in 1996, September, very little, about
51-49%.
It was going to help the schools, was going to help the
city, going to build this.
You sit back and you ask yourself what improvements you have
seen.
Yes, there have been millions of dollars spent on hardware
and stuff of that nature, cars and stuff of that nature,
that won't be coming in after 2026.
But it also included wastewater, sewer water.
What happened there?
They got a new stadium paid for.
They got a $25 million in the original for improvements to
NFL standards whatever that is.
And then we gave them almost the size of this building, a
fat print, and built a TV for people watching the games to
have an experience.
That's nice.
So now you got to go to a game and watch it on television.
That's even nicer.
But it really wasn't about that.
It was the revenue that comes off that big TV that you and I
will never see and you and I may never know what they are.
So we keep talking about building a stadium here for
baseball.
You got to be nuts.
Who is going to fund that?
And it ain't 500 million.
That's only the cost.
It ain't 600 million.
It ain't 700 million.
It's over a billion.
Because they don't tell you about the interest.
So you keep talking about the experience, and you keep
talking about going out and having a nice time while your
streets, traffic can't move, where your sewers are backed
up.
And talking about that, I voted against it not because I
wanted to, because I had to.
You don't change if size of a pipe without moving out 20
miles because the water can't drain.
It drains through if bay.
All you are going to do there is get more rainfall Colts
comes.
If we have that hurricane, that was a small one, yet very
devastating one, come through Tampa, I don't care what type
of pipes you have, you will all have been flooded.
Even downtown.
All of us would have been flooded.
Because the pipe only carries the water where?
To the bay.
And the bay with high tide can't take any water to the bay.
It's a very simple thing.
Can you store more water?
Yes.
Can you prevent flooding for the first half hour maybe?
Yes.
But if something large comes by, EL swimo, you better leave
town because it ain't going to be pretty.
Mr. Chairman, all I'm saying is, let's be diligent with what
we do.
Let's understand -- I'm not against sports.
Let them build their own damn stadium.
They got more money than you and I and more money than the
city, the school board or the county has, on a yearly basis
to do what they want to do.
Yet they want you and I to pay for it and they will convince
you to pay for it because they want to give you a center
somewhere, but yet you and I maintain the center if we have
the money or not.
Those are the things that are frustrating.
Those are the things why you see people saying, oh, that
individual there, especially in national politics, we didn't
vote for somebody we liked, we voted somebody because we
don't dislike them as much as the other person.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
Anything other new business before we go forward with our
9:30 meetings?
Yes, ma'am.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: My new business item.
Took me a second.
I would like to invite V.J. Gandhi here.
I'm looking at the November 5th, 2016 Indian festival,
Tampa Bay, which I think is the 26th -- that's what I
was looking for -- 29th year -- I think 29 years is a
long time to be holding a festival and it is every single
year.
And if no one has been there before it's just an amazing
experience.
The dance and the food and the culture, it's just a
wonderful experience.
So I would love to have Mr. Gandhi come and talk to us about
that.
And I can ask council for him to present -- since November
5th, I think the best choice would probably be our
October 20th City Council session.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Terrific.
Motion from Mrs. Montelione.
Second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Anything else, ma'am?
>>LISA MONTELIONE: No, sir, that's it.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay, terrific.
Now we are on our public hearings for 9:30 a.m.
If I could get a motion to open items 43 through 51 at this
time.
I have a motion from Mr. Maniscalco, a second from Mr.
Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Before we go forward, if there's anyone here that's going to
speak on items 44 through 51, please rise and be sworn in at
this time.
Thank you.
Item number 43.
Is there someone from staff to talk about this item?
Anyone from parking division?
Okay.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 43?
This concerns an ordinance dealing with penalties for
parking violations and revisions to our parking code.
I see no one.
If I could ask Mr. Maniscalco to take item number 43.
>>GUIDO MANISCALCO: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: I apologize.
Can I get a motion to close?
Motion from Mr. Cohen.
Second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Now Mr. Maniscalco.
>>GUIDO MANISCALCO: And ordinance being presented for
second reading and adoption, an ordinance of the city of
Tampa, Florida relating to penalties for parking violations
making revisions to the City of Tampa code of ordinances
chapter 15, parking, amending article 2, regulations,
permits, penalties, division 4, penalties, section 15-121,
penalties for parking violations, ticket cancellation
privileges, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances
in conflict therewith, providing for severability, providing
an effective date.
>> We have a motion from Mr. Maniscalco, a second from Mrs.
Montelione.
Please record your votes.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent at
vote.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Item number 44.
>>GUIDO MANISCALCO: Move the resolution associated with the
ordinance we just read.
>> Second.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion from Mr. Maniscalco.
Second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Okay.
Item number 44.
Is there anyone from staff to talk on item number 44?
I think staff took a vacation today.
Is the petitioner here to speak on item number 44?
Oh, there's Ms. Moreda.
I couldn't see you behind the podium.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: This is a correction on a scrivener's
error, so there is no applicant here.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: We just like to hear from you all.
Okay.
Before we go forward, I want to just say thank you, Mrs.
Battles, for being here today and bringing your fourth grade
class.
Thank you from Roland park.
Thank you, children.
All right.
I wish everybody that came here was this well-behaved.
(Laughter).
>> Including us.
(Laughter).
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Number 44 is a scrivener's error. Is there
anyone in the public to speak to number 44 on the
scrivener's error before we go forward?
I see no one.
Can I get a motion to close?
I have a motion from Mrs. Montelione.
I have a second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Mrs. Montelione, will you kindly take number 44?
>>LISA MONTELIONE: I move an ordinance being presented for
second reading and adoption, an ordinance amending ordinance
2016-60 passed and ordained by the City Council of the City
of Tampa on April 25, 2016, which approved a special use
permit small venue, consumption on premises only for beer,
wine and liquor for property located at 410 and 412 South
Howard Avenue correcting a scrivener's error by substituting
a revised exhibit "A" and exhibit "B" for the exhibits that
were supplied in error, providing for severability,
providing an effective date.
>> Second.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion by Mrs. Montelione.
I have a second by Mr. Cohen.
Please record your vote.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Maniscalco being absent at
vote.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Item number 45.
Staff.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Site plan has been provided to the city
clerk's office.
We have no objection.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: [Off microphone.]
Thank you.
>> Sam Pollack, 501 East Kennedy.
I am here for any questions and ask that you approve it.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Is there anyone in the public to speak at
this time for item number 45, AB 2-16-17?
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion to close by Mr. Miranda.
Second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
Mr. Miranda, kindly take item number 45.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move AB 2-16-17, an ordinance being
presented for second reading and adoption, an ordinance
approving a special use permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage
sales restaurant consumption on premises only and making
lawful the sale of beverage regardless of alcoholic content
beer wine and liquor on that certain lot, plotted or tract
of land located at 2223 Westshore Boulevard, unit B-213
Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in section 2
that all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict are
repealed, providing an effective date.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a second from Mr. Cohen.
Please record your vote.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Maniscalco being absent at
vote.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Item number 46.
He have.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
The site plan was revised to reflect hours of operation to
be consistent with chapter 14 and the site plan has been
provided to the city clerk's office.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions from council?
Petitioner?
>> Michael Horner, North Dale Mabry highway representing
World of Beer.
As Gloria mentioned we did agree chapter 14 the first time
we have agreed to that concession, and our attempt to reach
out to the neighborhood has been successful, we are aware of
no opposition that we are aware of.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Is there anyone in the public to speak on
item 46, AB 2-16-the 20?
If so please come forward.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Sir, come on up.
Please state your name and address.
>> Adam Smith.
I want to say that World of Beer have been great neighbors.
There's a lot of bars in my neighborhood which do not behave
well and they are one of the few that do and I save please
do not punish the one bar which the neighbors do like.
You should give them the privilege of having a liquor
license.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Anyone else in the public that would like to
speak at this time on item number 46, AB 2-16-20?
I see no one.
I have a motion to close from Mr. Miranda.
Second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Mr. Reddick, will you kindly take item number 46?
>>FRANK REDDICK: Move an ordinance being presented for
second reading and adoption, an ordinance approving a
special use permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales,
bar/lounge, consumption on premises only, and making lawful
the sale of beverages regardless of alcoholic content, beer,
wine, liquor, on that certain lot, plot or tract of land
located at 402 South Howard Avenue, Tampa, Florida as more
particularly described in section 2, that all ordinances or
parts of ordinances in conflict are repealed providing an
effective date.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion by Mr. Reddick.
I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion please record your vote.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Cohen voting no.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Item number 47.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
The site plan was revised and provided tote city clerk's
office as directed by council.
I wanted to bring to council's attention I did receive a
letter of opposition as it relates to the package sales
request for this application.
It was submitted by Dan pepper, president of Davis Island
Civic Association.
Staff has no other comments.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Shelby, I think we will file that.
Petitioner.
>> Todd Pressman, East Lake Road, Palm Harbor, Florida. We
appreciate your time today.
I'm here with John Hart, a 12 year exemplary history in this
area, Davis Island, operating two different locations.
The main part of this request is that he's expanding into
one of the additional units from where he is now.
The police you have is exemplary as well.
One small part of what he's requesting is to allow for a
very small part of off premises which would be a cooler and
that is the only element that raised a question or two from
the public.
But I think it's probably mostly misunderstood in people
thinking it's going to be a large package store which is not
going to be the case.
John has operated a business which is classified
specifically as a restaurant, and restaurant sales, and
again this is just an expansion of where he's been the last
four years.
He's operated across the street for seven years.
So ten years really just to match what else is occurring on
Davis Island in the immediate area.
Across the street his competition has the same uses and he's
seeking again strictly just to stay at the same par with his
competition.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions from council of petitioner?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak at
this time on item number 47, AB 2-16-21?
>> Beg your pardon.
John does have a petition, 100 names including many that are
abutting and actually a few that are rebutting and close by,
and we submitted those into the record to you.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Terrific.
Anyone in the public like to speak at this time, please come
forward.
Just state your name for the record.
>> Yes.
My name is Lorraine Smith, it's been quite a while since I
have been in front of the council members.
Just bear with me for a moment.
Getting up early in the morning.
Today, I am here to object, or we are here to object to this
file AB 2-16-21, which is in its second hearing.
I believe each of you received a letter from the Davis
Island Civic Association dated September 7th in which if
boards of the association unanimously resolved to oppose AB
2-16-21.
Our community does not want to be seen as a high night life
area.
We are a family oriented village type community.
Your role is to make wise choices for the city.
Our role is to build community.
Do not pass this resolution.
This does nothing for a family-oriented neighborhood.
A liquor store is the last thing that our neighborhood
needs.
We already have ample wine, beer and liquor available,
7-Eleven, handy, a restaurant, Margaritas, 220 avenues
Davis, the island club, Walgreen's, off the island, and ABC
liquor are all nearby.
We know tomorrow matters.
We have worked closely with the City of Tampa since the year
2001 when we created a neighborhood profile.
John Dingfelder was on the council at that time.
Charlie Miranda also was here.
We say no to open carry liquor until 3 a.m. on the island,
and no to a liquor store at 233-235 East Davis Boulevard.
Our vision for the future does not include a liquor store on
the island.
Community staff, when citizens, business and governments
work together.
Vote no on AB 2-16-21.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, ma'am.
Anyone else in the public that would like to speak on this
item, item number 47?
Sir?
>> Good morning.
My name is Steve Henderson.
My wife Lori appears and I live at 242 Columbia drive on
Davis Island.
Davis Island is a wonderful place to live.
We hope that's our last address.
We hope it's our dress for another 50 or 60 years.
And our home is a town home in a building that has eight
units on your site plan, and documentation number 2, and you
can see from that documentation that our home shares an
alley with all the businesses north on the east side of
Davis Boulevard.
Retail shops, restaurants, and of course the business at 235
and 233 East Davis Boulevard.
They are all great neighbors.
And one of the reasons we love living on Davis Island so
much, and particularly in that neighborhood, is because of
the vitality of that neighborhood.
I think the village itself and the mixed use of that area
for retail, restaurant, and homes is the kind of place that
a lot of places around the country are trying to be achieve.
In fact, what the City of Tampa vision is.
And I fully support that kind of vision.
I don't have any objection to the approval of special
permit, and in fact I support it, because we would be the
most directly impacted people if there were any negative
consequences or any negative impact of your approving a
special use permit, because our garage and our home
overlooks that building.
There won't be any.
More importantly, I think by expanding the business that
will promote the growth of that business, and also continued
vitality of that entire village and the businesses in that
village.
So I hope you will approve as you did in your first hearing
that special use permit.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, sir.
Anyone else from the public like to speak at this time on
number 47?
Ma'am, please come forward.
>> My name is Lorraine Horino.
I lived on Davis Island since 1977.
I agree with the comments of Lorraine Smith.
This is not something we need on Davis Island.
We have enough beer wine and liquor sales on Davis Island.
I watch the local news on a daily basis.
I read the newspaper.
I am kind of tired of hearing about shootings that go on at
clubs that are open till 3:00 in the morning.
This kind of package liquor sale attracts an element that we
don't want to attract to Davis Island.
It may attract violence, especially in light of the gun
laws, everybody can carry a gun, and Davis Island is a
family oriented area.
We have a lot of teenagers, young children, just presents an
element of temptation and just a bad atmosphere that we
don't need.
We have a bar, we have a pub, we have restaurants, all of
these carrying liquor.
I don't nobody what it's called now, the place on the corner
across the street that sales beer, wine and liquor.
This is something that I think the City Council should take
into account the wishes of the people who have lived on
Davis Island for a long time, and we want to preserve our
way of life there.
And I don't think we should be attracting people to Davis
Island at two or three in the morning to buy liquor and
maybe cause problems.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak
at this time on item 47, AB 2-16-21?
Okay.
Petitioner, I think that we have a question from council
member Mrs. Capin.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: I would like to know -- thank you -- this
is an existing business?
>> That's correct.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: These are the hours that this business is
open now? The hours they keep now, the ones that are here?
>> The 3 a.m., this would be an extension to 3 a.m.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: I thought so.
>> As are all of his competition.
The difficulty for John is --
>>YVONNE CAPIN: You know what?
When I see 11 a.m. till 3 a.m. and then 11 a.m. till 3 a.m.,
I look at it, and we have the city's hours that we allow,
which is 7 a.m. to 3 a.m.
And the difference is that when you do go with the hours
that the city permits, which is 7 a.m. to 3 a.m., you can
open at any time.
But the difference is that should in the future our council,
administration, decide to change those hours, they would
have been to be changed.
If we allow 11 a.m. to 3 a.m., that is not part of it.
And I cannot in good conscience vote for these hours that
are expanded without the addition of a safety net for the
neighborhood.
And all the City of Tampa.
So with that, I thought this was an expansion of hours.
I thought it the first time. Anyway, that's it for my
questions.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions from council at this
time?
I have a question, Mr. Pressman, if I could.
A couple questions.
One, this is -- it's in terms of the time frame and the
package sales in addition to what is already there.
It is a restaurant.
It is a restaurant in --
>> The kitchen is open all hours that the business is open,
yes, sir.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: What do the sales look like?
This operation has been on Davis Island for how long?
>> Four years.
Seven years across the street.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Do you know what the sales look like in
terms of restaurant versus liquor?
I mean, if you don't mind answering that question.
>> It's about 65-35.
>> State your name.
>> John Harstrite.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: This is a small venue.
You do not fall under our code concerning having to have the
audit provided to show that there is -- a certain amount of
food that's served, you know, because you are part of a
small venue if I am not mistaken on the use.
This is not a question for you. This is actually something
very specific.
You are changing the designation from restaurant to small
venue.
If I am not mistaken, the small venue is not required to
provide that information to the city.
Correct me if I am wrong.
>> Crystal Moore, legal department.
You are correct.
There is no audit for a small venue.
They wouldn't have to prove alcohol sales.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
That's what I was getting at.
Mr. Pressman, did you meet with the Davis Island homeowners
association prior to this discussion?
>> Well, the answer is yes.
Let me answer it specifically.
A letter from the Civic Association is only in regards to
the offpremises.
The letter before you is not objecting to the other sales.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Right.
>> John, I did touch base with one of the gentlemen that's
involved with the association.
When we first started this, to reach out.
The gentleman told us there would be no problems.
They were okay with it.
So we were very surprised in the last few days to get the
letter.
John made contact back with the association.
Evidently they had some sort of meeting at a different
location.
So John really didn't have chance to speak with them and
make sure they understood.
So yes, we did make the effort.
The original indication was yes, it would be okay, then the
letter came up just on the off premises.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: I'm sorry, I did not specify that it is
chapter 14; that the city has this ordinance.
Other.
>> What I would like to do at this point, I would like to
ask for a continuance because I do think that the Civic
Association did not understand the issue.
We met with some residents.
We would like to meet with the residents who have concerns
here today.
I think it would only be fair to John has made the effort
with the association, positively at the beginning, would
like to have a chance to meet with them, and we believe we
can come back, and it would be positive.
And be able to work with them.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
We have an ask for a couldn't answer.
What date looks good to you, Mr. Pressman?
Either October 20th might be a good time frame.
Or November 3rd depending on where we are at.
October 6th might be a little bit full at this time.
I'm not sure.
>> Did you say October 6th?
>> Yes, October 6th is available, I believe.
Clerk, are we filled up yet on second readings?
>>THE CLERK: Not yet.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Not yet.
Okay.
>> October 6th would be good.
>> Move to continue to October 6th at 9:30 a.m.
>> Second.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: We have a motion to continue from Mrs.
Montelione, a second from Mrs. Capin.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
We go on to item number 48.
Staff.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
The site plan has been revised as directed by City Council
and provided to the city clerk's office.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Petitioner?
>>JOHN GRANDOFF: Swat 3700 Bank of America Plaza.
I'm representing LLC.
The applicant in this application.
We have added all the requirements of the site plan.
The wall, fence on the east side of the property.
I respectfully request your second reading this morning.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
Any questions from council on this item at this time?
Is there anyone in the public to to speak on item 48, REZ
16-50?
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion to close from Mr. Miranda.
I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mrs. Capin, will you kindly take item number 48?
>>YVONNE CAPIN: An ordinance being presented for second
reading and adoption, an ordinance rezoning property in the
general vicinity of 91 Davis Boulevard in the city of Tampa,
Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from
zoning district classifications RM-24 residential
multifamily to PD planned development, residential,
multifamily, providing an effective date.
And you stated that including the amended inclusion.
It's there.
It's already there.
Okay.
That's it.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion from Mrs. Capin, second from Mr.
Cohen.
Please roared your vote.
>>THE CLERK: [Off microphone.]
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
Item number 49.
Staff?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
It's my understanding that the applicant is requesting a
continuance to the October 6th City Council meeting.
>> Good morning.
Thank you.
We are requesting another continuance.
The good news is the reason why we are continuing originally
to work out with staff and that's been resolved.
The reason why we are requesting a second continuance is
because the seller and owner are still apparently in
negotiations.
I'll see knew two weeks.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Hopefully.
We haven't voted on it yet.
Anything else, ma'am?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak at
this time on the continuance only on item number 49, REZ
16-51?
>> Move to continue.
>> Second.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: We have a motion from Mrs. Montelione, a
second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
All right.
Item number 50.
>>BARBARA LYNCH: Land development.
I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions by council at this time?
Petitioner?
>> I live at 117 Lake Shore road.
I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions from council?
Petitioner?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 50, VAC 16-17?
I have a motion to close from Mr. Miranda.
I have a second from Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion?
Oh, excuse me.
All in -- I guess it is all in favor of that one.
I don't see it.
>> One moment.
>>BARBARA LYNCH: It's actually the petitioner on the next.
John Grandoff is here for 17.
>> We voted on the motion to close.
We need to reopen it.
We should reopen it just in case.
We have a motion to reopen by Mrs. Montelione and a second
from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mr. Grandoff, do you have any comments or questions?
>>JOHN GRANDOFF: Is there a particular question?
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions?
>>JOHN GRANDOFF: This alley was platted in the old John
drew subdivision of West Tampa, has never been improved.
This is between MacDill and I believe Gomez.
Many of the homes and garages encroach on the alley.
If you look at the alley, you wouldn't even know it was
there.
So it's never been improved.
Ten feet wide.
Title will go to all of the property owners within the
block.
And I have received no objections to the application.
In fact, I received two phone calls from folks that were
very much in support of it because they would receive title
to about five feet of property.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions by council?
Again, anyone in the public that would liking to speak on
this item, number 50, VAC-16-17?
I have a motion to close by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
Mr. Cohen, will you kindly take item number 50?
>>HARRY COHEN: I move an ordinance being presented for
second reading and adoption, an ordinance vacating, closing,
discontinuing, abandoning an alleyway north of Eileen street
north of Cordelia street, east of MacDill Roosevelt
Avenue and west of Gomez Avenue in John H. drew's
subdivision, a subdivision in the City of Tampa,
Hillsborough County Florida the same being more fully
described in section 1 hereof subject to certain easement
reservations, covenants, conditions and restrictions more
particularly set forth herein providing an effective date.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a second by Mrs. Montelione.
Please record your vote.
>>THE CLERK: [Off microphone.]
>> My address is suite 3700 Bank of America plaza. Sorry I
was out of chambers at the time.
>> VA 16-18.
No problems.
And if you have questions I'm here.
And petitioner is here.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Petitioner?
>> Good morning again.
Vivian, 7717 Lake Shore road.
If you have any questions I'm here.
Thank you.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't have a question.
I just want to make a statement to ourselves.
This is about the third or fourth one in West Tampa
recently.
And I know that from what I understand, code enforcement is
doing an intensive search of West Tampa, because of the
buildings.
Not in this case.
I am not talking about your case at all.
But I want to make sure that we are not closing alleys so
people can say I need this.
The clarification of the law now that you didn't when you
built an apartment or whatever else is there.
That's all I'm saying.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: But there's no indication on this particular
case.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Is there anyone in the public that would
like to speak on item number 51, VAC-16-18?
If so please come forward.
I see no one.
I have a motion to close from Mr. Cohen.
I have a second from Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Mrs. Montelione, will you kindly take item number 51?
>>LISA MONTELIONE:
>> I move an ordinance being presented for second reading
and adoption, an ordinance being presented for second
reading and adoption, an ordinance vacating, closing,
discontinuing, and abandoning alleyway lying south of Dewey
street north of ABDELLA street east of Gomez Avenue and west
of Habana Avenue, in John H. drew's subdivision of northwest
Tampa, a subdivision in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough
County Florida the same being more fully described in
section 1 here subject to certain easement reservations
covenants and conditions restrictions and more particularly
set forth herein providing an effective date.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Second by Mr. Miranda.
Please record your vote.
>> Motion carried unanimously.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
We cannot open up or 10:30 hearings.
Item number 52.
To go to the withdrawn petition.
But we can go to the item number 3, which we removed as part
of our staff reports.
Item number 3.
If I can have staff come forward.
>>JULIA MANDELL: City attorney.
You have before you item number 3, an extension of a
contract which currently exists between City of Tampa and
ATS to provide services related to red light cameras.
This would be the second -- if approved this would be the
second extension under the original RFP for the red light
camera program.
This agreement would be the extension which would take the
red light camera contract that you currently have in
existence to October of 2018, October 31 of 2018.
The second relates to the indemnification provisions within
the original contract as I'm sure many of you have read, and
subsequent to many in the State of Florida underlying a red
light camera program, there has been extensive levels of
litigation which were not anticipated at the time that
jurisdictions entered into their contracts.
Therefore what we have done given the number of cases that
have been out there, we have asked for ATS to provide for
some additional indemnification provision which would
further protect the City of Tampa in the case of new
litigation moving forward.
And that is litigation potentially in the state courts,
within our local jurisdiction, or within the federal courts.
And if you have any additional questions on the litigation
we can get into that later in our discussion.
The third part relates to the costs which are associated
with each camera, all of the cameras we have, and the
original contract had appeared under which we paid ATS for
the use of the cameras, although it was actually taken out
of the money which was received by the city related to each
of the red light camera violations.
There was a tiered system that in essence had each of the
cameras costing a different amount from 4400 down to 4100.
The amount of all of those cameras which were approximately
31 cameras has now under this amendment been reduced to 4050
per camera per month, with the remaining cameras staying at
the 3750 amount per month.
So, therefore, there would be a net reduction in the costs
associated with red light camera program of what we are
estimating at this time to be $75,000 per year related to
the program.
Those are really the three changes that we are making as
part of this amendment.
It is up to you to determine whether or not you want to
approve the amendment, in the event you choose not to
approve the amendment, then we would be placed in the
decision of terminating the existing contract and moving
forward with the termination within the existing contract.
I'm available for questions.
But I also have Smalley here who is available for questions
related to the program, or any of the work that TPD does as
it relates to the program.
In addition, I have brought Robin silverman with me, an
assistant city attorney in my office, who has been one of
the attorneys in my office handling the variety of different
litigations which is outstanding, much of which for the
city's purposes have been stayed While we wait for other
cases to occur, and can answer any questions as relates to
any of the pending litigation.
Markey Hamilton of my office is also here.
She is the attorney honor handles purchasing items and
handles the contract drafting.
I'm available also for any questions.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions by council?
Mr. Reddick.
>>FRANK REDDICK: I pulled. This I want to say why I pulled
this.
Mrs. Mandell, we had discussion, and I don't know if you got
all the answers that I laid out to you in our discussion.
But let me start off with the first one.
And that's the number of employees that are working on the
red light cameras from your department and the number of man
hours that these individuals are put in.
>> Silverman can answer those questions with the legal
department's perspective.
We don't do camera time sheets so we don't have anyway to
quantify, but you can quantify the amount of hours she has
spent as well as other attorneys in the office have spent on
this matter, and corporal smiley can provide you with
information of the amount of man hours that TPD has in this.
Something I did neglect to mention is I understand the
representatives of the ATS are also here.
So if you have any questions for them, they should be
available to answer any questions.
>>FRANK REDDICK: All right, that's fine.
But the next question, questions after speaking with the
chief yesterday, so I hope he passes that on to find that
information.
So I will listen to your staff first.
>> Good morning.
>> ROBIN HORTON SILVERMAN: Legal.
There is a question raised as to the amount.
I cannot say.
There are also additional litigators associated with that as
well and I cannot quantify that at this time.
>>FRANK REDDICK: Okay.
Let me hear from the corporal.
>>JULIA MANDELL: While Robin has taken on the bulk of the
red light litigation in my office, there are other attorneys
who have been involved in various ways.
We have our municipal prosecutor who says it's necessary to
handle some of the cases that are in traffic court.
There's not that many of them over in traffic court but he
has spent some level of time probably in the nature of 40 to
50 hours over maybe a three or four-month time.
Jerry core I ask head of our litigation, he's not currently
spending any time on it but during the period of time that
time was being spent on those, he probably spent 3 to 400
hours of his time over several months.
We don't really keep our time in that way so it's hard for
us to quantify how many hours are being spent.
>>FRANK REDDICK: Could you answer this question on the
related nonvendor costs that might have been paid by the
city?
>> I'm sorry?
>>FRANK REDDICK: Could you speak to nonvendor related
costs?
>>JULIA MANDELL: I can only say are from my office how much
how much time that we have spent.
>>FRANK REDDICK: I'm talking dollar amounts.
>>JULIA MANDELL: Dollar amounts?
It's hard to quantify that when you have an in-house legal
department in that way.
It's not like we are paid an hourly rate.
I can't quantify it that way.
Everybody is on salary so their time is spent either doing
one case or another so it's difficult for me to quantify it.
Has there been a cost?
My office associated with this?
I would say there is a cost associated with it in terms of
taking attorneys from one item to another item.
But in this instance, with the red light camera program, we
have not hired any outside council.
So there hasn't been additional costs over and above our
budget.
But I would say there is some kind of soft cost.
But it's really difficult for us to quantify that over other
cases.
>>FRANK REDDICK: The corporal, and then I have one other
question.
And my question is to the amount of man hours that have been
designated by TPD.
>> Are you looking for a fiscal year or calendar year,
monthly?
>>FRANK REDDICK: Just give me if you have it for the last,
let's say, last couple of years.
>> The last fiscal year, 2015, so last year, for the fiscal
year, we have used 3,314 hours in this, but that does not
include my administrative time and our court time.
We have three that we work out of.
For the calendar year 2015 we used 18257 hours.
>>FRANK REDDICK: And these hours are designated towards
what?
>> This is to review the actual violations, determine
whether or not an actual violation has occurred, and
actually assess the violation and send the notice out to the
violator.
>>FRANK REDDICK: When you said 3,000, I believe 125 man
hours, are these officers assigned to another task?
>> These are officers that are assigned to the marine unit,
the aviation unit, the traffic unit, and DUI unit.
What they do in their off time, inclimate weather where the
unit can't take off, they will work on their computer and
work the system so it can be from an hour a day to a couple
of hours a day based on the work availability.
>>FRANK REDDICK: Do you have the dollars and the costs,
dollar amount that might be --
>> I did not figure in cost amount because of the range of
the salary between the individual officers that actually
work within the system.
That would take a great deal more time to put together.
>>FRANK REDDICK: Could you estimate a high range, medium
range, low range?
>> It really depends on the salary, sir.
I would hate to give you an answer as far as the dollar
amounts, without going into specifics.
>>FRANK REDDICK: Let me phrase it this way.
If you have a marine officer who has 15, 20, 18 years on the
force, and this person, marine Coast Guard, whatever you
call that, marine officer, if you take that person off that
shift, and has this person doing these red light cameras
review, then most likely that person in the system for quite
a few years that person is making a decent higher salary,
correct?
>> Correct, sir.
>>FRANK REDDICK: And so I know you haven't calculated any
costs, but it would seem to me if you are putting in 3,125
hours, that is paying somebody a person, and you are taking
these officers off the beat, it would say to me that there's
a substantial amount of dollars that are invested and
utilized by the officers who are in these positions for the
red light camera program.
>> As far as pulling them off of their assignments, usually
it's an hour a day which encompasses their administrative
duties, or part of their morning, or during inclimate
weather when otherwise they can't be out, take for instance
the hurricane.
Marine unit does not actually go out on a boat during that.
They'll sit in the office and wait for the response or
respond to flooding.
During that time that they are down, that's when they are in
the system.
>>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
And Mrs. Mandell, let me ask you this question.
Thank you, corporal.
You stated about the $75,000 that the vendors are increasing
to the city.
And what it reminds me of is the perception that I have
generated as of now.
And this experience comes as I share with you, and probably
share with some of our councilmen, my belief one time was
kind of favorable in dealing with the red light cameras.
But what I experienced a month, month and a half ago when I
was ticketed and got that ticket in the mail about something
that I truly thought was unnecessary and truly false in what
I received, and basically as strong as I can be, I was
determined that this is becoming more of a fraud than
anything else, a cash cow for the vendor and a cash cow for
the city because you are talking about $75,000 that you are
reading, and the perception is, this is not about public
safety.
Because when I look at some of these data -- and I'm glad
somebody presented it to me about the people who go to the
hearing -- and I'm looking at the number of tickets being --
and you look at in 2015, January, over 2,000 citations at
issue,
And this record what I am reading, if this is correct what I
am reading,
And having to pay $158 that I paid because did not want to
challenge it in court because of the negative publicity I
would probably receive from it, you know, it may mean that
$158 is wasted.
And if I challenge in court, I probably would have won it.
And now I'm hearing that prepping this contract up, get
75,000 more dollars.
That's where the perception comes in from what the people
are thinking about this program.
This is a cash cow for the city.
It's a cash cow for the vendor, because when I see when the
tickets are down and still paying the vendor more money than
what the city is generating, it seems like they are trying
to $75,000 -- and let's move on.
I'm not happy.
I'm not happy before my ticket.
I'm not happy about how the system is set up.
And I'm very sad to hear that we have almost been bribed by
saying $75,000 that we are supposed to be happy.
And I think it's time that we follow the lead as other
cities have done and not renew this contract, and that these
red light cameras need to go back with those vendors when
they leave town today, pack them up and ship them back with
them, because this is devastating on the people.
And when I look at these numbers, this data sheet here, it's
very discouraging, and the number of people, just to read
this.
And then to hear about the law enforce and the time they are
spending when they are supposed to be out with a
responsibility as law enforcement, and they have to spend
their valuable time reviewing and monitoring as part of the
red light camera program, and we don't have no dollar cost
that we can associate with that today.
You have not calculation pertaining to or office.
And it's just so many unanswered questions.
I think it's time, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me
to spend this time talking about this, but it's a lot of
people out there cannot afford to pay these tickets, and if
they challenge it at the hearing, they lose out, they pay
additional costs, if they go to court, they lose, they pay
additional costs, but the people who are -- it's the vendor
organization sitting outside the State of Florida that is
looking good, because they are the ones getting all the
money.
And our poor citizens that we represent are the ones
suffering.
So whether the motion passes or fails, I am going to make
the motion to terminate this contract after everyone is done
talking.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Anyone else at this time? I assume you are
done, sir?
>>FRANK REDDICK: Yes, sir.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other council members have any comments
or questions?
Mr. Maniscalco.
>>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I wasn't here on council yet when this
original contract was put into place.
But before getting elected and arriving here, I have always
been, I won't say, critical of this of the red light
cameras, but I have always thought in my personal opinion,
and just my opinion, that it makes drivers more paranoid.
I'm a good driver.
But with the red light cameras I'm extremely careful that I
take that right hand turn too quickly, was I going 12 miles
per hour, was I going 9 miles per hour?
Am I expecting a citation in the mail?
But that's beside the point.
I think of points that Councilman Reddick brought up, what
is it, $158 fine?
That's a lot of money for hard working people that are on
minimum wage that are working multiple jobs, single parents
trying to raise their kids.
$158 will set them back, whether they win or lose in court
if they challenge it.
But that's almost a paycheck to these people.
So I have to take that into consideration.
Is this really a public safety?
Is it really reducing crashes?
Is it really making things better?
Or is it just another funding source for government?
I have never been a fan of this.
I am not going to support this.
Today.
I never have been supportive of it.
But I just don't see the true benefit of it and having to
move forward and keeping this.
Thank you.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions or comments from council
at this time?
They are very quiet.
Mrs. Montelione?
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
I have been supportive of the cameras in the past.
And looking over the research, it's been around now a while,
and of at the MPO -- and I don't know if the other
members -- I'm not sure -- I don't think Councilman
Maniscalco was there yet.
I think Mr. Suarez was there.
We had a presentation from an expert in the field of
pedestrian and bicycle safety.
And she works nationally on a national basis.
And one of her strategies that she cited for pedestrian and
bicycle safety was the use of red light cameras.
And it's precisely, I think, because people are paranoid.
You are driving more carefully.
And are more aware of how far you are from the stop line
when the light is yellow, and prepared to stop when it turns
red.
I continue to see just anecdotically, I continue to see
flagrant, you know, red light running.
But that's anecdotally.
That's not looking at it from the studies.
And reading the studies -- and I have read a couple -- they
are conflicting.
So one will say that the red light cameras are supporting
the safety argument, and another will say that it doesn't.
So it's really hard to sift through all of the statistical
analysis and come to this with an unbiased opinion.
Because the bias comes in with your personal experience, I
believe.
When you have got two reputable studies in front of you and
they say opposite things.
So a while back when we discussed this, we had TPD, and I
would assume that's why you are here this morning, come and
talk to us about the red light cameras.
And I wanted to follow up on some of what Councilman Reddick
brought up, and that is the cost.
So we have officers who are reviewing each time a citation
is flagged, or a camera record violations of red light
running, and a human person ultimately makes the decision.
>> A law enforcement officer.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Yes.
They are human people.
>> Yes, ma'am.
Part of that has to be a law enforcement officer that
reviews and issues the notice of violation.
A human.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: And Mr. Reddick asked a questions to try
to get at how much that cost is.
Now, I would also presume -- there's been a lot written
about, you know, it's better to have an officer at the
intersection, and if you have, you know, an officer at the
intersection, I can't imagine what the cost would be for an
officer or a series of officers to be posted at each of the
intersections where these cameras exist 24 hours a day,
seven days a week.
>> The cost would be outrageous.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Exactly.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: So I am not sure we are comparing apples
to ales when you are looking at the cost of having a piece
of technology and then someone reviewing it, or you have an
actual police officer on the site doing the job that this
piece of technology is doing, and in a lot of our lives, it
is a fact of life that technology has replaced a lot of
individuals and taken some jobs away because of the
efficiency.
When I walk into, you know, a grocery store, and there's a
choice between going to the aisle that has the automated
checkout system or a person behind the cash register, I go
to the person behind the cash register, because I know that
in some cases technology is taking jobs from individuals.
But in the case of our law enforcement officers, those
officers could be redeployed, not baby-sitting at an
intersection, and deployed to fighting crime, or making
better use of their time.
So I'm not sure the cost as far as officers' time is how
this should be decided upon, just in my opinion, because I
don't think we are talking about the same dollars.
Looking at what we have experienced in the City of Tampa, I
read one study done by USF -- Go Bulls -- so they talked a
lot about Temple Terrace.
And it may be because of the proximity to Temple Terrace to
the University of South Florida, so it was very easy for
them to study that area of the
What have we experienced in the City of Tampa?
>> With regards to what?
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Fatalities gone up?
I mean, my concern, and my primary concern, always, number
one, is keeping people alive.
And bicycle and pedestrian safety is my issue.
And I have seen more than my share on Busch Boulevard and
Nebraska Avenue of crashes, some with fatalities and some
with debilitating injuries, and it goes to how many times I
drive through that intersection, of course.
So what have we seen in relation to fatalities, injuries,
crashes, at these intersections?
>> I can't specifically answer that as far as the number of
fatalities have gone up, the number of crashes have gone up
or down at specific intersections.
I don't keep the crash statistics.
I manage the red light camera portion of it where the
officers actually review and we have to look to the traffic
unit and statistical persons that actually pull that data.
I don't do that.
I can say the cameras regardless of whether they are there
or not -- and I have video proof to show that sent to me as
well ---crashes still occur, fatalities still occur in those
intersections even with the camera there.
So there could be a number of reasons.
Do I think it's a safe program?
I think the program is safe and I think it improves the
safety as far as being aware of approaching the
intersection.
So I review hundreds of videos a day, thousands of videos a
week.
It all depends on how you look at it.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Do we have anyone here that can speak
to --
>> Crash statistics?
No.
Not on crash statistics.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: I thought I had asked for someone to be
here to discuss that.
Ms. Mandell?
>>JULIA MANDELL: I didn't know that was something
specifically we needed to have presented today, and if we
need to do that we'll go ahead and continue the item.
But TPD has come forward on many occasions and discussed
that item with City Council.
But we could also pull the -- we have the crash data report
previously submitted to City Council.
But if you want to ask questions about it then I would
recommend we go ahead and continue the item so we can have
that conversation.
But I know that we have been having that as an ongoing
discussion point with council.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay.
When I asked that question -- I'm sorry, I don't know the
gentleman's name.
Sir, you said that you had knowledge?
You have to come to the podium.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Montelione, here is the problem with
bringing someone when we have already done public comment to
come forward.
He is not an expert on this.
We are trying to get information regarding the contract.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Then I would suggest --
>>MIKE SUAREZ: A continuance?
>>LISA MONTELIONE: My aide did call around to ask someone
to talk about this issue specifically.
So if there's no bun here, my preference would be to
continue the item.
Because those are issues I want.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: If you want to continue the item because the
information you want in order to get to the bottom of this,
as part of council, we will have been a discussion
concerning that before we go forward so that we understand
where we are going to stand.
Mrs. Capin.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: Point of order.
We can ask anyone here any question at any time.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: I understand that.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: So not that her asking that question is out
of order.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Capin?
>>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: If you are saying I'm out of order doesn't
make it out of order.
But if you want to, I will ask the council if they want to
have him speak before us.
That's up to, I believe, Mr. Shelby?
Mr. Shelby?
She has made a comment that I am out of order for making
that statement.
Now, based on our rules of procedure, going forward, is that
true based on what she just said?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Rule 4-K states as follows.
The chair shall decide all questions of procedure in order
and the decision shall stand unless reversed by a majority
vote of the entire council.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
And Mrs. Capin, before you say anything else, I just want to
point out that making a statement saying that I am out of
order when in fact I am not, I just want to make sure that
you understand that I made a statement that was not out of
order.
If you want to make a motion to allow that to go forward, we
will.
Procedurally I did not do anything wrong.
So if council would like to hear from someone other than the
people that are here to talk about the contract per our
rules, it is the pleasure of council to do so, they can.
So I just want to point out that I did not do anything out
of order or procedurally --
>>YVONNE CAPIN: I heard.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: I just want to make sure you understand.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: Fine.
In our procedure, we have always asked questions and called
people up even after they spoke.
So I want to clarify that, because it has happened.
We have done it.
And today, it's something that we have to vote on.
I need to know -- clarify that.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Normally, in the process, it is usually
done in quasi-judicial matters in the course of you
obtaining evidence.
You have done that in the past.
With regard to workshops, your workshop actually has a
specific rule about it that says any member of City Council
may ask questions of any person present during the workshop.
That's specifically for workshops.
In this case, council, under your rules, as I have stated to
the chairman, if you disagree with his holding, you have the
opportunity to make a motion, and it's up to the decision of
council to be able -- what direction it wishes to take.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: Okay.
So we have been procedurally just doing -- because it has
happened many, many, many times.
And so I will make that motion.
And, you know, as council we need to look at that procedure.
>>FRANK REDDICK: And I second your motion, because Mr.
Suarez, if they have where knowledge about red light cameras
in the State of Florida, you want the best in the state,
and -- and you have to read some of his research that he has
done.
And I would recognize him as an expert because that's what
he's specializing in red light cameras in the State of
Florida.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: We have a motion on the floor from Mrs.
Capin.
We have a second from Mr. Reddick.
And we have discussion on it.
Sir.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, chairman.
I'm appalled that the same person, council members, the same
person in the audience could be asked a question on a
workshop but not at a council meeting.
What in the world is the difference?
I have always thought rule or not a rule, that any council
member for the information of that particular council, one
of the seven, could ask a question of somebody who has
spoken before, for that council member's information to make
an intellectual decision on the basis of what that
discussion was about.
Not to allow a council member -- and I'm not questioning the
debate on who is right or who is wrong that to me doesn't
make a difference.
No council member should be muted from asking a question of
anyone of the audience for the betterment of that council
member to make a decision on whether that is correct or
incorrect in that council member's mind, in which way he or
she shall vote.
I don't see why there's a difference between a workshop and
a council member at any time.
You speak for three minutes.
That's it.
I understand that.
But then if I or anyone else says, you know what?
I didn't -- can I ask you a question?
That should never be Matted.
This is still a democratic society.
It's getting to the point where we have too many damn rules
and not enough common sense.
I don't know if this gentleman is an expert.
Don't care to know.
But the facts of the matter is we should realize what the
real costs are and what are we doing?
It's not about whether you approve of the cameras or not.
To get all the information of both whether you approve the
cameras or not.
And we have far from reached that decision yet.
Thank you, chairman.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Do we want to move forward on the vote or
continue discussion?
Anyone else besides people that have already spoken on that
item?
Mr. Cohen.
>>HARRY COHEN: Very briefly.
Obviously, I think council members have the freedom to ask
people in the audience anything they want.
It's up to each of us to make a decision how much weight to
give to whatever it is that is presented to us.
The only real comment I wanted to make, however, is
regardless of whether this conversation goes forward, if the
information that Councilwoman Montelione needs is not
available today, we need to get to that and decide how to
resolve this rather than prolong it any further.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
Any more discussion before I take a motion on Mrs. Capin's
motion?
I see none.
Please take the vote.
All in favor of allowing staff to go forward having her ask
that question, having that person of the public come
forward, please indicate by saying aye.
Okay.
Go ahead.
Call whoever you want up here.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
>> My name is Matt Florell.
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak.
I am really just wanting to point out ---
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't know what the question is.
You must have a question.
I'm not fishing in deep water.
Tell me.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: So I have before me the study that he is
holding in his hands which has been completed by the Florida
highway safety and motor vehicle division -- dated for
fiscal year and analyzed 2014 through 2015 of this report,
and I also have the one that I noted from USF which is this,
which is not so much a study as a report, but it is an
abstract from a study that was done at USF, an update on red
light camera research, the need for federal standards in
public safety.
So they were making their assumptions based on the federal
government regulating the industry or regulating the
cameras.
So I'm trying to distinguish between the two reports and how
it relates to what actually happened in the City of Tampa.
So the question I have for you, sir, can you shed light on
the difference between these two studies?
>> Yes.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay.
Can you please -- or the difference between these two
studies.
Because I read them both.
And they both say different things.
Actually, USF refers to the Florida highway safety report in
their paper.
>> Right.
Well, first I have to say Tampa specifically, it's very
difficult to quantify the crash changes because you only
have 19 of the 57 cameras that have not had some significant
period of down time.
So less than half of the camera program, less than half of
the cameras in place have actually been in place for the
full term.
Some have been up for multiple years.
Some didn't get started till the third year.
That's why when you do a study you have to pick the ones
that have been active for the longest amount of time.
The ones that are consistent.
The ones that have not been, you know, taken out because of
275 construction.
So that's partially what the State of Florida report did.
That's why are they couldn't look at all the intersections
and all the cameras.
So the State of Florida report -- and I have got it up here.
It's a little too big -- basically states that across those
eight intersections that they evaluated, they came to the
conclusion that there was a 50.51% increase in overall
crashes, 141.67% increase in angle crashes.
Rear end crashes also went up 52.94%.
There's some more information in here.
Nonincapacitating injuries didn't change much up 4.17%.
Incapacitating injuries went up 16.6%.
Fatalities at the intersection before were zero and
fatalities after were two.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay.
So can you tell me -- because in looking over this
information, because like I said, my primary concern has
always been pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
Is there anywhere in either of the reports -- because
personally, I didn't see it -- that speaks to the people who
aren't in the car?
And the injuries, it appears from reading the report, the
injuries are to the people who are inside the car when they
crash.
>> Right.
Pedestrians, the effect of cameras just looking through the
data, do impact mostly motorists, but there is actually a
crash involving nonmotorists provisions on the last page of
the statistics, and it shows that at the intersections there
were nine crashes involved nonmotorists before and there
were eight accidents, so there was one less crash after the
be cameras recorded.
That's the only safety improvement.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: That's what I was trying to highlight.
Thank you.
I don't know, since he's here, if anybody else has any
questions, but those are my questions.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes, sir.
I'm not an analyst and I'm certainly not in anyway related
to anyone who diabetes this study, but when they did the
study, everything was alike, the same amount of cameras,
same amount of daylight.
Was it a rainy day?
Was it a foggy day?
Was at -- I don't know all of that.
When they did the study were all parameters included?
That's a lot of red on the negative side.
So those were not touched.
They were only those with a plus.
And in my mind I don't have the study in front of me.
Just from my own little knowledge of doing my own little
check book sometimes it's red, sometimes it's black and I
want to ask why it was red and why it was black here.
>> Well, it's actually very difficult to do red light camera
studies isolating only red light cameras.
Here in Tampa we have got all of this construction
everywhere.
And that's really not taking into consideration intersection
changes, adding new changing from light bulbs to LED lights.
Pavement markings.
There's a study in Orlando that shows fresh pavement
markings reduces crashes on-site.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I think traffic on the street is a
wonderful thing, and I also think that we have is
ridiculous.
That little thing with a hand.
You don't know if it's a 16 or a 6.
And I have got pretty good eyesight and you can't tell
because they are so small.
Go to a third world country and it's this big.
You can see them from a block away.
Red and blew.
Here they are red and black.
Listen, I live Hillsborough high school red and black but
you can't see red and black when they are driving.
You see an intersection, what does that many?
6 or 16?
It doesn't -- that's why I sponsored -- with Mr. Reddick --
I think it was his idea -- to bring in some of that money to
intersection improvement, and what I have seen all the
signage of the markings, of the changing of how much time
you have to cross, it's el-nil, because in third world
country after the light changes from red to blue it gives
you 3, 2, 1, yellow.
And you can see that.
And you know what you are doing.
Now, a free country like this one, all you want to do is --
and you know there's going to be a question in the next five
years because they are going to have driverless cars.
So I don't know who the hell is going to get ticketed,
number one.
Number two, you are going to have cars now, I would imagine,
that they go by the speed, and that light hits and the car
says, oh, I can't go 75 mimes, I can only go 70.
The car is going to tell you what to do.
And I imagine it will do the same thing with lights.
It will make you stop before you even drive.
But that's all, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Capin?
>>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You know, the last time the contract came up, I don't know
how many of us, I supported that -- I didn't vote for it
until we had -- I don't have any questions for you.
I'm just going over my numbers here.
Thank you.
If I do, you can get up.
Several of us voted not to -- not to approve the contract
until some moneys were allocated specifically for
engineering and making these very problematic intersections.
And it was all of $400,000.
I was trying to look for the number.
I asked my aide because my budget book -- let me see if it
came out.
Not yet.
When we talk about our annual budget, the amount of money
that is allocated for police and fire, is more than all the
ad valorem money we take in.
So to tell me, to tell us -- how many cameras are there as
of -- active now?
>> Installed there are 54.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Get closer to the microphone.
>> Currently installed 54 cameras.
We have three intersections currently down for construction.
18 active intersections.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: We have 54 cameras.
Then we are talking about 5,140 hours that were spent
reviewing these last year, and today.
Instead of putting those people, you are saying it would be
cost prohibitive to have police presence at these very
dangerous intersections.
But it's cost effective to pull them from whatever they are
doing at the same rate that we pay them in order to review
these?
It just doesn't make sense.
And if the administration wants these cameras to go forward,
and they have stated that they have, it's Mrs. Montelione's
request and mine is really, wouldn't you support your
argument for the contract in these red lights by telling us
the improvement of crashes at these sites?
Nobody has that number?
That's just amazing.
I hope you got them.
Okay.
>>JULIA MANDELL: City attorney.
A report was given to council in January, and again in April
on those items, and I was not aware that's something that
council needed reiterated at this moment in time.
That being said, Mike Schmid, the attorney involved in that,
giving the information in that presentation to you is here
and can also answer or provide you with additional
information if you need that.
The information that we have from before hasn't changed from
the report we gave in April.
But we are happy to report that.
And the alternative if council would prefer, it can continue
this until the October meeting and we can bring forward
additional information on that particular item.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you for that.
We don't have a number here today.
Also, I am going to state something.
Our jobs here is the public safety and well-being, period.
None of us -- that is our job, period.
And not only do we have a 5,140 hours that were pulled
because of the storm, because the marine can't go out.
Well, can they go out on an intersection?
We don't know how much it really costs.
And that is a huge problem for me.
Not only are we looking at the police.
Our attorney stated several hundred hours.
Do you have any idea what these attorney salaries are Al
annually?
I know it can be broken down by hour.
We need to know what we spent on this.
The true number.
And you need to nobody the return on investment.
And I don't believe the return on investment is adequate for
us to go forward.
I asked the cameras.
So, I will let you know now that I will not be voting for
this contract to go forward.
If you want to continue, you can.
But it would probably be the same vote next week and the
week after and the week after that.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
Any other comments or questions much anyone that hasn't
spoken yet on this item before we take any action at this
point?
Okay.
No one else?
Mrs. Montelione.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
You know, yes, we were presented the previous information.
That's why I have a file on it and that's why I have all the
notes from our previous meetings.
But January and April, this is September.
So there's five more months of information that may be
helpful to us.
And I know our police department is very data driven.
And I would imagine there's data somewhere that could be
produced.
And it's my apologies to the legal department that when we
met and discussed this issue with Mrs. Mandell, I did not
specifically reiterate that I was going to ask those same
questions that I asked in April that I asked in January.
I guess I shouldn't assume, but I should have mentioned that
when we met that I was going to ask these questions as I had
in the previous two meetings.
I will say, I mean, it looks like just from the discussion
point, that I will say, you know, when somebody is in a car,
and they run a red light, and they suffer an injury, they
ran the red light.
When somebody is in a car and hits someone who is on a
bicycle or is a pedestrian, no matter the circumstances, if
it's daylight, it's nighttime, it's raining, it's not, they
hit a pedestrian.
That pedestrian had, you know, some responsibility.
But when you are in a car you have more responsibility.
So according to this Florida highway safety report, which is
why I wanted to point out, you know, again, it's fiscal year
2014-15.
So I don't have the update to this report to see if any
other nonmotorist lives were saved by this Program.
And being number two in the entire country with pedestrian
and bicycle deaths, number two in the country, the Tampa
MSA, which is Hillsborough, Pinellas and Pasco, any time we
can save even one life which is what this report says, one
life is saved, from someone who isn't behind the wheel of a
many thousand pound vehicle, is something that we need to
do, because like I said, when you are driving, you have a
responsibility.
And it seems like all too often -- and we all experience
this on a daily basis no car -- that people don't take the
responsibility of driving.
As Councilman Miranda has pointed out I don't know how many
times in six years, people are eating and putting on makeup
and they are watching TV and they are talking on their cell
phones and they are sending text messages, people do not
take driving a car seriously anymore.
And in some ways I'm hoping that automated vehicles come
through sooner rather than later, because you take the human
factor out and maybe we'll have safer streets.
But, you know, I am always going to ERR on the side of
safety.
And if we save a life of someone who has decided not to have
responsibility of being a driver, then it's worth it to me.
So I don't see this as a money thing.
I don't see it as a numbers and dollars.
I mean, I have to disagree, I think having an officer who is
not otherwise deployed, I mean, if they are on light duty
and they are reviewing cameras, tapes because it's something
they can do while they are on light duty, I think that's a
good use of our officers' time and a good expense to incur.
And realistically having somebody who has to baby-sit at an
intersection is way more expensive.
And I think you want to clarify something.
>> We do use light duty officers as well for the program.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: My brother was a police officer in New
York and I know when he was injured they put him on desk
duty.
He hated it.
Bull we didn't have any of this technology.
>> There are several officers that are on light duty
currently, which saves time of the other officers.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you for that.
I figured that's who was watching those cameras.
But that's all I have to say.
I mean, you know, the vote is going to be the way it is.
I just have my own personal opinion about it.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Reddick, hang on a second.
Mrs. Capin is next.
Mr. Cohen was next after that.
Okay.
I believe Mrs. Mandell wants to say something before we go
forward.
If it's okay with you all, I am going to let her talk.
>>JULIA MANDELL: City attorney.
I know it's not related to the budget and the last time we
had a contract moving forward, and a percentage of the
budget being set aside for intersection improvement.
I am not as familiar with the budget.
I wanted to just go ahead and get that clarified.
As it stands right now in the current budget, there is a 25%
money from the red light camera program that are continuing
for intersection improvements.
I just wanted to make sure that information was clear for
the record because I wasn't sure if it was.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: The 25%, the last time was 400,000.
So that we took in $1,600,000.
>> I'm told the expected revenue, if you want to call it
revenue, from the red light camera program for this next
fiscal year is a million dollars.
So it would have been reduced the 25% which would be
250,000.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: Okay.
All right.
You know, it was brought up to assume that the red light
camera crash numbers -- shouldn't assume that.
I'm sorry, but this administration publicly has said it's
about safety, it's about stopping the crashes.
That they don't have the latest numbers to hold up their
argument is astounding.
It is astounding.
In my estimation.
Because, oh, they didn't ask for it so we are not going to
give it to them.
And I agree that, yes, we should spend the whole million
dollars or the whole million six, whatever it was we took
in, on presenting -- preventing more of what happened in the
intersection.
Yes, we do need to educate the public.
I say that all the time.
Cars, you are talking 2,000 pounds again someone that's in
their skin.
And we have -- most people actually live in their cars.
The hours that are spent coming and going and moving is
almost like their second home.
That doesn't make excuses, but it needs education.
Both on the bicyclists, the pedestrians.
I have been -- and this is not even on a street, in a
parking lot, in a shopping center.
I cannot get over how many people, when you have -- I have
my car in reverse, and I look back, and they are just
walking right across, right behind me.
I'm in a 2,000-pound car.
There's no way in a parking lot -- I always watch to see who
is backing up and I stop.
The education people don't realize what we are looking at,
where the cars and the pedestrians.
But, again, administration, you did not hold up your, you
know -- if the administration is safety, safety, safety, you
need to show us the numbers and how safe we were.
And that did not happen.
That's it.
Thank you.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Cohen.
>>HARRY COHEN: It's been my observation that there are
statistics and studies will show in this particular matter
both sides of the issue.
If you want to prove that red light cameras don't improve
safety at intersections, there are studies that you can find
to show that.
You can also find studies that will show that they do.
And you can also find that crashes may not go down but the
type much crashes may change.
You may have less head-on collisions and more rear-end
collisions, like Councilwoman Montelione said, I don't know
that I have ever seen any analysis of what happens to
pedestrians and bicycles and people that are around these
intersections when these cameras are operated.
To me, this ultimately comes down to our own experience as
drivers and pedestrians and what we actually encounter on a
daily basis.
And like another council member that spoke earlier, I have
been ticketed, and by an officer for making an illegal
maneuver in an intersection.
And you want to know what?
Every time I pull up to that inter section I think about it
and I make sure that I don't do the same thing again.
So different people react differently to different
situations.
It's my view that these cameras do act as something of a
deterrent.
They slow people down.
They make people more aware.
And I agree with Councilwoman Montelione that at the end of
the day bicycle and pedestrian safety is one of our top
priorities in this community, and there's no question at the
MPO of that we were presented with very definitive data that
for pedestrian and bicyclists these can be a very effective
tool to make our streets safer.
I just don't have a problem with them.
And my final reason for not having a problem with them is
that I really believe that if you don't want to get a
ticket, you should slow down and make more of an effort to
stop when the light turns yellow rather than speeding up to
get through the intersection, as all of us I'm sure have
done before and a lot of people in the community do it on a
regular basis.
We just need to be more aware when we are going through the
intersections.
And I really don't have a problem with these cameras being a
tool that helps to make people more aware.
If council members feel they need more time in order to get
more information about crash data, I'll be supportive of
that.
But I don't philosophically have any problem with this
program.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Reddick.
Unless you are going to call the question.
>>FRANK REDDICK: No, no.
I was just going to use my privilege to speak, and correct
some of the misstatements.
One, let me start off by if anyone thinks this is not about
dollars and cents, they are blind, because the data shows --
I can just read this report right here from our own staff.
If you had a chance to read this, and read the dollars and
how many people are involved, court reporters, court
reporting and transcripts, challenging red light program, I
mean, multiple attorneys, TPD, all this is money.
This costs money.
And if you don't think it's about money, then you are blind,
and a person that is going to drive through -- the problems
with getting ticketed in most cases are people who are
making left turns, and left turns when there's a pedestrian.
Green light, yes, and you go to make a left turn, if people
driving north and south, how can you turn if there is an
automobile coming in, they don't wait for the yellow light.
They run through the yellow light.
And you are out there in the middle of the road trying to
make a left turn, and you have been flashed by a camera.
How do you protect yourself from that?
So it's not about wait till the light turns yellow and then
you drive.
If you are ever out there, and go out in an intersection and
try to make a left turn when you have got traffic coming
from the opposite direction, see how you have to wait, or
you are going to run and hit somebody either way.
But the problem is, it used to be about public safety.
But now it's all about money.
And that's the bottom line.
And the people that are affected -- these people are not
intentionally trying to run a red light.
Look at this data.
Number of people.
280,000 some people.
Do you think these people intentionally want to run a red
light?
That's not happening.
And based on the data, the data is there.
And it's based on a question that Councilwoman Montelione
asked about this.
And won difference.
One.
Number one.
Uno.
One.
And so we are all concerned about public safety.
It was public safety issues that on Hillsborough Avenue
right across from Meridian point, about public safety, about
people that cross the street.
And I don't think no one disagrees about public safety.
But to make the false assumption that just the light -- sit
there and just wait for the light to turn green and you can
go, or the light turn yellows and you yield, but you try
doing that making a left turn, and you don't have that left
signal.
And how many roads in this city got left signal turns?
Not many.
I know people on Martin Luther King, and 19th street,
are raising hell with the city because they want a left-hand
turn.
Signal lights.
And they can't get it.
Now, they have got to turn out there in the middle of that
road and watch traffic go back and forth and try to wait
till the last car passes through there floored for them to
move forward.
So, you know, we can make excuses.
And we can sit here and make excuses.
But the bottom line is that one person sitting up here in
public safety, but you have to take into account the true
reality I spending $75,000 more. If that $75,000 is going
to go towards 25% that we pushed for to do infrastructure
improvement and sidewalks and these cameras where most of
these people are getting ticketed?
Is that going to happen?
A lot of these cameras are sitting in my district.
A lot of my people who can't even afford to get gas are
getting ticketed.
And we are worried about public safety.
Do you think these people want to be hitting somebody,
running a red light?
And that's the problem.
And until -- I agree with Joe Henderson of the "St. Pete
Times."
It's all about money.
And if you read his editorial, it's all about money.
And it's all about money.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Miranda.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I agree with the statements that
everyone in this room is about safety and no one wants to
see anybody hurt.
In fact, if you go back and look at the tape of the first
time we had the red light cameras come before us, I voted
against it.
And I stated then that I didn't want to see that money go to
the general fund.
That if there was to be made, that I would support it to
going to fix an intersection.
Because if it didn't, then it was about money.
And we came to a compromise.
I fully supported the compromise.
A at least I am did get something for public safety with the
rest of the council members.
However, when you go take an exam in the State of Florida,
the first day they give you a little car to drive, one to
take or whatever, and take you through a little course.
And if you don't come to a complete stop, here is what
happens.
You fail the exam.
I don't want anybody to get a ticket.
But if I or anyone else, with or without the camera, you are
still violating the law.
Once you do that, they say that's your timing or whatever.
However, on the other side we have a city that's of age.
We have all this new technology going to the city, that it's
different from the city.
And I will give you some highlight.
You go down Florida Avenue, you get to palm street, make a
left by YMCA.
Now you got construction.
They change it from a two-Lane on either side to a one with
a nice sweet spot in the center and that's a short block
between Tampa and Florida Avenue at this point.
You have induction of roadways.
Then the middle of the road they put a little sidewalk cut
through so you can walk across.
So then I start to think, I said, let me ask myself this.
People at the YMCA exercising.
They can't go 80 feet to the left or 90 feet to the right
and cross where the red light is.
Now we are going to give ingress in the center of the road
to walk across the road, without any development yet at
Tampa Heights?
What you are looking for is a human disaster.
You have more and more traffic on a more and more narrowing
road with more and more people coming.
What do you think you are going to have?
You aren't going to have a fun party.
You are going to have a funeral.
It's like that throughout the city.
I'm not blaming anyone.
But there is things you can do.
You go down Cleveland, heading west, when you get to Howard,
you are driving down your Lane.
All of a sudden your Lane becomes a bicycle Lane because you
have to veer to the right to make a right on Howard to head
north.
That's real smart.
I don't know if I have a car that's a bicycle or a bicycle
that's a car.
It's not done right.
The striping in the city, I don't care whodunit or who did
it or who gonna do it, it's not right.
You are looking to fix things, and in essence you are
creating more of a problem.
You go down palm heading to Ybor City, and when you get to
palm and Nebraska, in the mornings, if you go by there, down
to one Lane, you see how you like it.
So you are aggravated.
When people are aggravated, they don't think too well,
including myself.
So what happens is you create this feeling and you want to
shave your head when you are driving, eat a sandwich or put
on lipstick or whatever you want to do, eat lunch, whatever
inside of a car, and you have all these changes around you.
Now you are going to drive a car, look out for another car,
watch out for the motorcycle, and don't forget the bicycle
Lane may be on this side or the other side of the road.
Oh, you have got a problem.
You need a computer inside the car.
And it's not the computer in the car, at this time computer
in your one-cell brain.
So you have one all these problems when you drive a car.
I applaud the people who drive a car.
It's getting more and more difficult every day to be a
driver in the United States of America.
Like I said, in a couple of years you don't have to worry.
There will be driverless cars.
They'll tell you will with you to start, when to go, when to
eat, when not to eat, then you can do anything you want in
the car.
In fact you don't have to have a house.
If you have a big car you can live in it.
So it's changing.
But let's find out what's going on.
I'm not for or against this.
I want to see what's going to happen.
And I would imagine this contract, you get out, you get
notice of 10, 20 or 30 days and you are out.
That's what I think is there.
Fair.
Do we have an opt out like that?
That's the first thing you should know.
I didn't mean to talk over the rest of you.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: That's okay.
Mrs. Mandell, are you going to answer his question?
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Next contestant?
>>JULIA MANDELL: City attorney.
There is a termination clause.
Contract negotiation.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I guarantee there's a contract there.
>>JULIA MANDELL: This agreement is terminable and either
party may cause with 30 day written notice.
There may be some issues --
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I imagine there -- if I was a contractor
holding a city contract I would say you can't do that
without having an excuse somewhere.
>>JULIA MANDELL: I want to tell you on the face of it, yes,
there's a 30-day termination for no cause.
There may be a penalty for it.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: In years back, Mr. Chairman, and then I
will leave here, years back I stated at the time when this
became a negative cash flow that this city wouldn't have any
cameras, because of the negative cash flow.
You need money to do everything.
I made that statement some years back whenever the first
contract came in.
And I'm still holding to that statement.
Although you have had some months here with the negative,
overall it has not.
But when you get to a negative yearly position I guarantee
you that no money for cameras and no cameras.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: I think that everyone has had a chance to
speak and I will speak at this time before we go forward.
You know, this is one of the few times in terms of our
enforcement of any ordinance or any law in the City of Tampa
that we have more discussion about the cost of enforcement
than at any other time.
We have officers that ride a motorcycle.
We have officers that have horses.
It costs money in order to have horses for police officers.
There are lots of things that we spend money on.
I think that Mr. Cohen was very correct in saying that this
is a tool.
How we use the tool is up to us.
Everything that we do when it comes to issuing a ticket or
citation to any driver brings in revenue.
I don't think -- and corporal, could you come up?
Do we not keep some of the money from any ticket that we
write on any traffic citation?
Or is it --
>> It really depends.
Going back to the traffic unit it really depends on the type
of citation, if it goes to court, a certain percentage going
to the county and that type of thing.
I can't quote how much the city gets of anything.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: We do cite people for public safety reasons.
We do get -- and I know that I have gotten a ticket in the
county for not renewing my tag in a timely manner even
though it was 30 days after my birthday and they did not
accept that.
And I didn't like that.
A police officer -- excuse me, a sheriff's deputy, you know,
along one of our northern roads stopped me in rush hour
traffic because he saw my tag, he ran it, he stopped me, he
made sure that he got me that ticket.
Now, I assume -- it wasn't a public safety issue, didn't
cite me for any other traffic violation -- I assume someone
is going to get money out of that.
Maybe I'm wrong but I'm thinking somebody is getting money.
I paid it.
You know, so there's this aspect that we are as part of our
budget, the largest portion as you know, personnel that we
use for public safety purposes, fire and police, and so
there is a cost, and there is an amount that we get by
virtue of it, it is not only from what we do in terms of
ad valorem taxes.
Again, this is about money, I have always maintained that I
like the fact that it is a public safety way of dealing with
this, if we put a police officer on a motorcycle or on a
cruiser, at those corners, there's a cost to be that.
There always is.
And there always will be.
There is no budget neutral way of doing this.
And even this is not a budget neutral way.
Even if we ran it ourselves there's still going to be a
cost.
If we bought cameras and said we are going to run it all
ourselves it's not going to go to any third party vendor
doing this.
There is going to be a cost.
Now, the public policy questions that we have, which is
whether or not we should use this tool, is a legitimate
question.
And that's something that I think all of you have made
comments of.
Some people don't like them, some don't want to use them
association people believe as I do that believe it is an
important tool to have, for police officers to have in order
to try to stop, or at least minimize those red light
runners.
Having had a red light ticket myself, making a left turn
from Florida Avenue onto Busch, going east.
Yeah.
I think --
Had an officer been there he would have stopped me, too, I
would assume.
>> All traffic stops, notice of violation is $158.
And 251.
>> So there is a difference in cost.
There is a difference in terms of what happened.
Again, there is a cost to whatever we do, any kind of law
enforcement.
Okay.
This is just one more tool.
If we don't like the tool get rid of it.
Vote to get rid of it and not have any more cameras.
That's perfectly fine and it is our right to make that
determination based on whether or not we approve this
contract, you know.
But it's not going to make it more safe if we have police
officers on the road.
It's not going to make it less safe.
It is just another tool that we use.
Again, I think the argument of this will make it safer is a
specious argument.
Does it help to change behavior?
I think it does because it changed my behavior in terms of
when I go to a red light intersection.
Again, we can make these arguments back and forth all day
long, which we almost have done all day long.
So hopefully we will be able to go forward after this and
make a decision.
We know that there's been a couple questions.
One member had mentioned previously that you might want to
continue it.
Other members said that they are going to vote no matter
what happens.
So we are going to try to go forward from there unless there
are any other comments from council at this time, or if
there's any other questions from staff or any other people.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: I would like to know, Mrs. Mandell and
the legal department seemingly had a lot of little
conversations, and I'm not sure how they relate to our
discussion.
I would like to know.
>>JULIA MANDELL: I was discussing with Mr. Shelby the fact
that a representative of ATS has asked if there's an
opportunity for them to speak.
And I believe to make this decision if they would allow ATS
to speak.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Would you like to hear from ATS?
>>LISA MONTELIONE: I would love to hear from ATS.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you for asking.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: You're welcome.
>> Good morning.
Jason Norton.
I have many electronics up here because I am pulling data
for you.
I just want to be try to clarify some of the stuff that's
been going on in this topic.
There's a lot of information that everybody is gathering.
A couple of things.
On the safety you are exactly right, for pedestrians and
cyclists, to help that vision zero that I know the city
talked about last December.
This is part of that tool box, the red light cameras.
Even thinking about blocking the box, intersection safety
when you come up Tom a crosswalk.
If a car is not in the mind-set to stop before the
crosswalk -- not the crosswalk, the pedestrian has to go
around the car, around the crosswalk, and then whose
liability is that because they are out of the crosswalk?
So that's one thing.
As far as the police whether they can be posted at an
intersection, obviously he can.
Obviously they do.
We see this all the time.
But think about what they have to do to capture a red light
runner from a police standpoint.
If a police officer back here is watching the light,
watching the car, if the car runs the red light, then that
car has to get through traffic, through cross traffic to get
that car.
So you almost have to have two police officers, one on this
side watching.
One on that side as the chaser. This is a force multiplier.
And it's much more efficient for police officers to monitor
this behavior in this program.
Revenue, we talked about revenue.
Obviously, it's been brought up.
I want to be clear, even though you have the million dollars
in your budget, you probably brought that in in the last
four to five months.
Our projections are the city will make a little over $2
million in the next year.
That is a figure that will be higher than ATS's share.
I know that was thrown around as well.
But the city will bring in more revenue than ATS.
This is obviously after the state has been paid.
I want to make sure that was out.
Than the insurance institute for highway safety, if you see
a car commercial, you see the safety ratings of the car,
they are the organization that's always referenced.
They do the crash data.
They do the tests.
They came up with a study this past July that talked about
the increase in accidents from cities who have shut down
their program.
Increased 30% on fatal red light cameras.
And that's the insurance institute for highway safety for
programs to end their program.
But I thought that is important to know.
As far as the Florida report that's been discussed, in the
report itself, in the footnote, which is where all the good
stuff is found, it does indicate that because of new
reporting from the police department of how they locate
crash locations, that there was an artificial jump that may
be possible in the report.
In addition, the increase in traffic, also they attribute
that to an increase.
If you read the footnote, it's very clear that you have to
take the report for what it is.
In addition, if you are going to analyze the red light
camera position, you have to analyze the non-red light
camera.
Maybe something does increase.
But if this increase is higher, then you have an increased
chance of safety at a red light camera location.
And that is in the study as well.
So I think those are important aspects to know.
And I'm happy to answer any questions.
And I hope some of that helps clarify some of the questions.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Montelione.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
I have a question.
Has ATS undertaken or has your company at any time hired
individuals to do research of this nature?
>> Accident report?
Sure.
And I have done it myself.
Not that I am an expert.
But it's really important to go into the report.
And you can't look at this --
>>LISA MONTELIONE: No, I understand.
And looking at what was written before online, there's
problems with -- they are not consistent.
They are not looking at the same data.
There's, you know, two years of information in one place,
and there's only five months of information in another
place, the conditions as Mr. Miranda pointed out, you know,
may have a role to play, and that's not mentioned.
So there's all kinds of -- in study, like you mentioned, you
want a control group.
And you want all the factors being studied to be equal.
Now, it's difficult to do in a crash situation because, you
know, there are so many variables.
But, you know, I don't know that any of the studies, as Mr.
Cohen pointed out, are definitive.
And again Matt has pointed out that none of the studies seem
to be definitive or at least, you know, there are
parameters, study parameters aren't the same.
So it's a very difficult decision.
And, you know, I would -- I'm sorry, Ms. Mandell?
So Mr. Miranda had asked about the termination clause.
So this extension of this contract -- it's not a new
contract.
It just a renegotiation and an extension of terms.
So this would be the second of two, two-year terms.
>>JULIA MANDELL: Correct.
Under the original RSP under which ATS was the successful
bidder the terms of the contract call for two, two-year
extensions which would be the second of the two, two-year
extensions.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: So at the end of two years this contract
is over.
>>JULIA MANDELL: That is correct.
The only way for us to proceed forward would be to do a new
RFP.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: So we are only talking about this
contract continuing for another two years before we have to
start from scratch all over again.
>>JULIA MANDELL: October 131st, 2018.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: And we all nobody the legislature is
weighing in.
2018.
And we all nobody the legislature is talking about this very
same issue.
And sometime within that two-year period, the legislature
may decide state wide, the practice of monitoring
intersections by artificial means, by technology.
So with the pointed out termination clause, that anytime
between now and two years, it can be terminated, and that
this contract is coming to an end, and we don't have any
definitive study because they all seem to be flawed, that
they are harmful, or they are helpful.
So, you know, again, we have got two issues here.
One is a policy issue and one is the contractual issue.
The contractual issue is, do we ride out the next two years
until the contract is completely over?
I don't see that when you are weighing the policy, I don't
see the harm outweighing the good.
If you are no car and you run a red light, it's your
responsibility to stop.
If you didn't, whether it's intentionally or
unintentionally, you deserve to get a ticket.
We can't have a police officer at every corner.
So this is the next best way to make people responsible when
they are behind the wheel.
And, yes, one light, one pedestrian, one bicyclist is worth
instituting a technological means to make the intersection
safer.
And everybody should have a refresher course in the rules of
the road, because you have heard a whole bunch of things
stated here dab by council members, and if you go back to
your driver's ed rule book, there's probably a whole bunch
of rules that are being provided by not just but everybody
and you see it every day, and things become so commonplace
that you accept it like, oh, you can do that.
No, look at your driver's handbook.
You aren't allowed to do that.
So again I am going to say it's two years.
We don't have data that says anything is good or bad.
I know that at least one non-motorist life was saved.
And we can terminate this contract at any time.
And the next legislative session, it might be terminated for
all of us and the decision is taken out of our hands anyway.
So I am going to restate that I am going to support it,
because, you know, the two years, maybe during that time
we'll get more definitive answers.
But I agree in continuing the program.
And as far as using the money in the intersections, we all
know that our transportation division does not get the
dollars that they need, not here in Tampa, not Hillsborough
County, not anywhere in the state.
We don't prioritize safety enough.
So whatever dollars we get to make safety improvements is
great.
When the motion was made way back when to utilize the funds
for intersection improvements, does that still stand?
>>JULIA MANDELL: Yes.
25% of the funds in the fiscal year budget coming in from
red light cameras is going towards those intersection
improvements that's already in the budget.
The line item in the budget and the anticipated amount of
the budget is a million.
That doesn't mean it can't be more.
It just when they were -- it could be less.
They anticipate the amount.
And I think it's fair to say they think it will be an
addition, especially if we go forward with this change --
>>LISA MONTELIONE: But it's the contention it's all about
the money to put into our safety program.
>>JULIA MANDELL: The 25% portion of that specifically is
with a line item with the budget for fiscal year 17.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: So again, another reason for me to
support.
Anytime we can get additional dollars for safety
implementation, transportation improvements, I think is a
good thing.
So is it all about the money?
Yes, it's about getting money in order to make the safety
improvements that we desperately need.
Thank you.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Capin and then Mr. Reddick.
And it looks like Mr. Miranda?
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I just have a question.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: We'll go forward.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: The statement it's all about the money.
It's always about the money.
You know why?
Because we have the purview of the costs of this city and
the taxpayers.
It's all taxpayers, all of it, whether it comes from the
state, whatever.
It's taxpayer money.
And we need to watch that.
We need to watch it.
And again return on investment.
Now, it was stated, an officer at every light.
Okay, we have 54 lights.
We don't have red light cameras at every intersection.
So when that statement comes up, we don't -- so there's
intersections that presumably are safer because they have
red light cameras and the other ones are not.
We don't have red light cameras.
We don't have officers at every intersection.
So, again, it is about the money.
And it is about -- and from the beginning.
We are talking last year.
Last year when it was 1.6 million.
The year before, what was it?
How much did we take in?
The year before that how much did we take in?
And none of it, none of it was targeted as we asked it to be
targeted.
It is about the money, very much so.
And that's what we take care of, is the taxpayers dollars.
And the return on investment is most important on how we
treat the moneys that the people of this great city.
And I will go back.
It is $240 million.
Not broken down.
Let me look at this.
$240,881,000 for police and fire.
And we take in annually recommended annual -- I don't have
the ad valorem but almost 100,000, if not -- 100 million
more than we take in, in all the ad valorem tax year.
And I am going to say, if we cannot keep our intersections
safe with what we are spending on police, then we have a
problem.
Because we should not be spending any more than what we are
spending now.
Again, it is about the money.
And it is about the taxpayers money.
Thank you.
Part of the public safety and well-being and it's the
well-being of the public and what we do with their money.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Reddick.
>>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
We can basically come up and find all kinds of justification
pro or con, and if we are going to wait till the Florida
legislature to do something we will be waiting for the next
20 years.
They haven't done nothing on no major big item, and we
waited last year for them to make decisions and never --
sir, let me ask you a question.
How many municipalities in the State of Florida canceled
their contract with you?
>> I'm sorry?
>> How many municipalities in the State of Florida --
>> There have been a few -- I don't have exact number.
I can get them for you but there have been a few cities.
There's also Hillsborough County, extending their contract.
Orlando is expanding.
South Sarasota.
>>FRANK REDDICK: You can remember the ones that are
extended but you can't remember the ones that are canceled?
What other state do you have contracts?
>> Other states?
>>FRANK REDDICK: Do you have contracts with other
municipalities in other states?
>> Yes, sir.
>>FRANK REDDICK: Have any of those other states canceled
contracts with you?
>> Sure, there have been communities.
>>FRANK REDDICK: What percentage in the State of Florida
have canceled their contracts?
>> Maybe 4 to 5%.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: If you are not at the podium you cannot
speak.
>> He was whispering to me.
(Laughter)
Yes.
And as Councilwoman addressed earlier about the state law,
as it changes, some communities can't survive.
When there are changes in the law.
You have probably seen this with other programs in your
community.
So some have canceled, some have expanded.
>>FRANK REDDICK: What was the primary reason for those who
canceled their contracts?
What was the reason?
>> State law changes.
>>FRANK REDDICK: State law changes.
What was the state law that changed?
>> Well, there's been some court rulings that Mrs. Mandell
can probably speak to better than I can.
But they have had some court challenges.
They have had state changes, and the state is involved now,
so they get a portion of that revenue that comes in to go to
state general revenue.
And if you had a program that had low volume, and these
cameras work.
Whether anyone wants to admit it or not they are going to
reduce your violations.
Sometimes this F they reduce the violation if you are in a
local community where you have a lot of local drivers they
know where the cameras are.
They change the behavior quickly.
And those volumes are down.
But when you are given some state money or whatever, your
volume is going to drop and you can't afford it.
And as Mr. Miranda has addressed, it becomes a loss leader
and you have to make a decision whether to go forward with
that or not.
>>FRANK REDDICK: You have a very great memory base for
promoting but you have a lack of memory when it comes down
to data about who canceled and who did not cancel.
>> I can tell if if you give me a few seconds but they have
been smaller.
>>FRANK REDDICK: You say Hillsborough County renewed,
Hillsborough County?
>> Hillsborough County just renewed for five years.
>> Five years.
>> Orlando is expanding. And Sarasota is probably getting
ready --
>>FRANK REDDICK: Did you offer Hillsborough County, offer
incentives to expand?
>> We lowered -- well, they didn't expand, they just
renewed.
They extended their contract.
We did offer them a lower price.
>>FRANK REDDICK: A lower price.
All right.
>> They went to 4250 per camera.
>> And basically the same as you were going with the City of
Tampa?
>> No.
City of Tampa has certainly the lowest, in my region, under
$4 that you per camera.
You also have unprecedented language in the new amendment
that does not belong anywhere else -- does not exist
anywhere else in the state.
I know your legal department was adamant about having that
language in the amendment.
And it's different.
>>FRANK REDDICK: And why did you agree to that language?
>> You know, we didn't agree to everything, but she made her
case, and said we need this, and negotiation.
Nothing good, nothing bad, but you have the vote.
So they were adamant that that needed to be in thereby to
protect the city.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Reddick, anything else?
>> That's it.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And these contracts, I'm sure that some were along the line
when you have a vast amount, many numbers going through not
only in dollars but in volume.
Has there ever been any type of areas where you come to
restatement of reconciliation of the facts, where there's
been money that the city says it does or the city says you
owe them money or not?
>> Yes.
We do have.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Has any of that been settled?
>> It settles as a -- if there is an adjustment that needs
to be made, for example, a lot of construction, projects
going on, we did not charge during that time for those
cameras.
The other cameras that went down for construction, you
weren't being charged.
So they go on an invoice and sometimes if it happens after
the fact, it might be the month after that they reconcile.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Is that in the contract when you had an
agreement on the side?
>> No, it was in the contract, and then we agree when it
goes on and there's a BEVY of reports available.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: One thing that bothered me is that court
cost.
If I remember the original contract, there was three party,
but only one party paid the courted you costs.
>> The court costs?
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Somebody appealed the decision of --
that they received a ticket, they go to court.
>>JULIA MANDELL: City attorney.
The law subsequently changed from the original contract, and
what you are speaking of is you now have to have a local
hearing officer which from the circuit court so the moneys
expended, the officers are paid by those who decide to
appeal by but ticket at the court cost or not.
We have to have some of those costs in case the appellant
does prevail.
If somebody takes it up to the UTC which is the traffic
court we all think about.
Then there are court costs associated with that.
Under the original contract there was no -- he would need
legal representation at those hearings and that's the one
thing that has changed since the original contract, because
of some of the court cases, we have had attorneys involved
in these cases no manner that we probably wouldn't have
otherwise.
That was the point to provide us with greater resources from
ATS on those issues.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You have me halfway confused here.
You say "yes" or "no."
Yes, we pay for it but in essence we aren't paying for it.
People who appear before the magistrate are paying for it.
>> If they lose, they pay.
>> I imagine 99% will lose when you have it on file, you
have it on camera. So what's the amount?
They pay $158 plus?
>>JULIA MANDELL: They pay $50 in addition to the $208 as
opposed to the 158.
And that's under statute.
All of it is statutory.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And that $50 is to cover what cost?
>> Cover the cost of the hearing officer.
>> How many hearings does he have a day?
>> We have a hearing I believe every Friday.
Every Friday.
About 30 hearings per week.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 30.
So he makes $1500 we are paying him to sit here for an hour
or two hours?
>> Well, I think it goes longer than that because they have
30 people.
Not everybody shows up and I think the hearings typically go
about four or five hours.
Sitting downstairs on Friday afternoons.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I am more now in my mind -- we used to
go straight to court.
And then the law changed and they have a magistrate.
So the people pay 158 plus when they appear, they have the
right -- this is still a free country -- to appear, it
doesn't become free anymore.
Now you have to pay, even if you don't have an attorney
representing, you have government to pay to appear before a
hearing officer?
>> No.
You pay if you lose your appeal.
If you win your appeal you don't pay anything.
>> That's like telling me if I fall out of an airplane, I
have a parachute I am not going to die.
>>JULIA MANDELL: It would be the same thing as the old
process which was the uniform traffic court proceeding,
except there are costs associated.
If you lose you pay a court cost.
It doesn't matter what kind of traffic ticket it is.
That's the uniform traffic citation, that goes to circuit
court of the so if you run -- if you get pulled over for
some reason and you go ahead and challenge or appeal, you go
to uniform traffic court and if you lose that, then you have
to pay.
And that money goes over to the clerk.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So then the law changed.
We didn't do it.
The law changed.
Instead of having of a free partnership where one party pays
the total cost, we have to put that burden on top.
We don't pay.
They don't pay.
The state sure as hell ain't going to pay.
State just wants their money.
So now you have got three parties involved.
And now whoever gets the ticket comes and appears, and they
pay the additional cost.
>>JULIA MANDELL: I hope I made myself clear.
You don't have to appear.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You don't it have to do anything.
>>JULIA MANDELL: You either pay your ticket.
When you receive a notice of violation in the mail you
either pay your ticket, or you file an appeal.
If you file an appeal you go to a special magistrate.
And if you lose, if you win you pay nothing.
If you lose, then you pay an additional $50 as your cost
associated with moving forward.
But that's statutory.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: What is troubling me is that before
that, you would go to court.
You still had to pay but the city had to go and represent
the city.
In court, now the city doesn't have to appear.
>> We never would have represented anybody in court on any
of these tickets, whether or not it's the red light camera
violation or anything else.
The only thing we had to appear has to do with some of the
court cases that have come up.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If they go to court, then you still have
to pay, not them.
Meaning the other two parties.
>>JULIA MANDELL: Now I'm confused.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I get a ticket and come to magistrate
and found guilty, oh, yeah, appeal to a court and I want my
case heard by a jury or whatever.
Then who goes to court?
Who pays?
Does the city pay?
Does all three parties pay?
>> While she's checking that question, if somebody gets a
ticket, and they think they wrongly received for a variety
of reasons, and as you said, she has still pictures, has
video, you have an abundance of evidence that you would not
have otherwise if a police officer had pulled you over.
You have that evidence for your benefit.
But you can also -- I think people also called the police
department and said, hey, this is not my ticket, and he's
able to pull up the video, review it, and deal with that,
also.
At no charge.
So the evidence is overwhelming.
But there are circumstances, obviously, that they can also
look at.
It's an option.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Corporal, before you go field goal I could
get an extension of time for this.
30 minutes would probably do it.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Motion to extend till 12:30.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor?
Opposed?
>>HARRY COHEN: I do have to leave at 12:30.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
Mr. Miranda.
>> I may be able to clarify it for you.
One of my officers reviews the notice of violation.
They send it to the individual that's registered to the
vehicle.
That individual, if they choose to pay it, they pay it.
If they choose to set up a notice of violation hearing, they
select that.
They appear on a Friday afternoon.
Those court cases usually -- the length of that usually
average about two, two and a half hours.
Usually that's over three hours.
When they show up here, my officer that I have designated,
certain officers on all these cases, they sit right where
this young lady is sitting right now.
They submit their testimony.
The magistrate is the one that decides whether or not they
are guilty or innocent in the case.
All the information they have there, the video is shown, as
well as the photograph.
If they are found not guilty there is no cost for that
person.
That person can go ahead and leave F.they are found in
violation of running that red light, then they are assessed
$158 plus the 350-dollar fee.
Then they pay that.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That officer is paid by us.
>> Correct.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Not by any two parties.
>> That is correct.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So we are taking the burden of proof in
having to come before a magistrate to prove that the burden
of proof is correct.
>> The burden of proof still lies on the officer making that
observation, that's correct.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So we are paying for it and our two
partners are having lunch.
>> I'm not sure --
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Well, you said at lunch or something.
I understand.
>> The same thing with UTC.
The officer responds to the subpoenas because we are issued
subpoenas in traffic court.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions?
Mrs. Capin?
Let's get to the end of this one way or another what we are
going to do.
Mrs. Capin.
>> Anything else, ma'am?
>>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes.
>> Yes, ma'am?
>>YVONNE CAPIN: Okay.
We got to the magistrate.
They decide to go to court.
Who represents the city?
An officer, no legal?
>> That is correct.
Unless there is ongoing litigation.
For just a regular traffic citation, a uniform traffic
citation, and that usually comes because they failed to take
pay their notice of violation within 65 days.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: I'm saying if they lose here and decide to
appeal to court, take it to court.
What happens then?
>>JULIA MANDELL: It's like any other traffic citation.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: I don't care about -- I'm asking --
>>JULIA MANDELL: What I am saying is nobody from the legal
department ever shows up for those.
We have the police officer that shows up.
The only thing that we have done differently with the red
light camera violations as they moved into the court versus
any other traffic citation that comes forward is given the
litigation that's going on in south Florida, down in
Hollywood, and we wanted to make sure we made enough of a
record if the case goes up that we have done our best job we
can, and we don't show up very often.
We used to show up more.
But once it's in our building it's treated like any other
traffic ticket.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: But we show up to make sure that the record
is correct, or because of what happened in south Florida?
>>JULIA MANDELL: A case came out of south Florida, we
wanted to make sure that when we had cases as a red light
camera violation under our existing contractor, that
contract is made part of the record, we have a little legal
memorandum that we prepare that we submit into the court
record, and we try and make sure that we make as good of a
record as we can.
We have a couple of cases that we have live testimony from
attorneys in our office and from other folks.
We haven't had to do that again.
But that was in order to ensure that our program could be
upheld in the event there was a challenge to it.
But that's over and above any other type of cases except
that we handle in traffic court which we don't handle cases
in traffic court.
>>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you.
And just for the record, I have never had a red light camera
ticket.
I'm done.
Thank you for allowing me the time.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: No problem.
Okay.
I assume nothing else from staff.
What is the pleasure of council?
I don't know where Mr. Reddick is.
If you don't mind getting Mr. Reddick back in here, I assume
he might want to be here for whatever we have to do.
Excuse me?
>> I move the item.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: We'll wait for Mr. Reddick to come back here
because I would rather us figure out what the next steps are
going to be.
But thank you.
You will the maker of the motion.
Is there someone that wants to second that motion?
>>HARRY COHEN: I second.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: We have a maker of the motion, Mrs.
Montelione.
We have a second from Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Reddick, since you were sitting outside, there has been
a motion on the floor to approve the resolution.
I apologize.
I didn't want to move forward until you came back in here.
So we have a motion on the floor to approve the continuation
of the contract.
We have a second from Mr. Cohen.
Any discussion at all on that particular motion at this
time?
Mr. Miranda.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The only thing legally I want clear in
my mind is this.
When you get a normal driving ticket, is the police officer
that issued the ticket does not show your case is
automatically dropped?
So I'm asking the police department this question.
If, in fact, that officer sitting here, is that the same
officer who witnessed the event the first time he saw it or
is that a different officer?
>> We have certain officers that actually attend the notice
of violation hearing.
We have certain officers that attend the UTC traffic
hearing.
The information is based on the script as well as all the
evidence, which is right in front of them.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So the case is not heard in the same
mannerism, you are telling me, sir, that's handled in the
court, the officer that issued the ticket?
>> All the evidence is presented and all based off of
photographs, all based off the video.
So to have 30 different officers appear on a notice of
violation, it would be too hectic because there are
different types of office officers that actually issue these
violations.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: But we do that in normal traffic
situations.
>> Normal traffic citations UTC, uniform traffic violations,
that officer witnesses out in the field. This is not on
video.
He's the one who has to go and testify.
I saw this vehicle driving down the roadway, that light was
red, that person violated that by crossing over the
prolongation of the inter section.
That's a differ scenario altogether.
There's no photographic evidence.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I just want to make sure that what we
are doing is 100% legal.
>>Are yes, sir, it is.
>> And it's been tested in court?
>> Yes, sir, it is.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Montelione, you have a question.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: I would just point out at that point in
time then you have two officers who reviewed the tape, who
saw the video, who came to the same determination.
So I would say it's more -- it's a stronger argument because
instead of having one officer who saw it and there is no
video record, you now have a video record and you have two
officers who are have reviewed it who are testifying --
>> That's correct.
And if there's an issue as far as validity of the video or
the photographs or anything else that goes along with that,
the error of judgment, we he would dismission it
automatically right then and there.
And I field calls all week long as far as I reviewed the
videos and you give them a determination right there.
If I feel there's an error made, or there could be some
question about it, I will -- the benefit always goes toward
the citizen.
They get the benefit right off the top.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other comment or questions before we
clear this particular agenda item?
The motion is to approve the contract continuation by Mrs.
Montelione.
It is seconded by Mr. Cohen.
Including the revisions that have been negotiated by our
staff with ATS.
That is the motion to approve the resolution.
Okay?
All right.
All in favor of that motion by Mrs. Montelione, please
indicate by saying aye.
Who is opposed?
>>THE CLERK: [Off microphone.]
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
Is that correct, everyone?
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Our next item up is item number 53, we had a 10:30 hearing
that we need to get it withdrawn.
If I can get a motion to open item number 52.
I have a motion from Mr. Miranda, seconded by Mrs.
Montelione.
All in favor say aye.
Do we have sog someone from the petitioner to ask forthwith
drawl?
Yes, sir?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe legal was present and high
pressure to leave.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: I apologize, I could not hear you.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.
Legal department was here and they had to leave.
And what happened is that I suggested that I would just
suggest to council that all it would take would be a motion
to accept the withdrawal.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to have item 52 withdrawn.
>> Second.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: All in favor?
Opposed?
Very well.
We have a continuance request from the legal department on
item number 53.
>> I'll move that continuance to our October 6th meeting
under staff reports.
>> Second.
>> Second by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
We are going to jump to number 56.
Mr. Rogero is here to talk about that particular item, if
you could, sir, before we go to Mr. Schmid on the next item.
>> Dennis Rogero, mayor's chief of staff.
Thank you for having me here today.
I'm here to respond to your request because we think this
item is a little beyond human affairs issue and ideally the
way that you run city government.
You all may or may not know that we have fully half a dozen
different methods for police to serve in this organization
ranging from taking the concerns to their supervisor up
through the chains of the director to the human resources
department.
We also have a grievance in arbitration, or arbitration
process.
We have a civil service board, as you know.
And then of course we have the abuse hotline that we are
talking about today.
I think it goes without saying but I'll say it anyway, the
mayor's highest priority, and I'm sure you all's highest
priority, that our employees are treated equitably and
fairly and that the business of the city is conducted
ethically and fairly.
So in addition to those half a dozen items, we have also
got, I guess, an unofficial way.
You know, the mayor is everywhere and talks to everyone.
I can't keep up, but I also try to get up there and talk and
take the feedback. And we are busy.
Everybody is busy.
But we follow up.
In addition to that, every year since we have instituted
this program, in 2013, all new employees go through an
orientation that includes information about what the hotline
is, and how you go about activating it.
It's not confined, by the way, to a telephone.
You can also do it on the Internet.
I lead in with this to say we think we are doing a very,
very good job.
But nothing is perfect, and no process is perfect, and
everything can be improved.
So a couple of things that we are looking at improving to
raise the profile, if you will, and get more pertinent of
this tool for the employees, is we are going to retain
everybody's e-mail, staff meetings, things like that.
We are also going to explore use some of the technologies
that we have available right now.
And we have had some very good sense on training everybody
with the Americans with Disabilities Act, training our
employees on emergency situation training, and where we can
put it on the screen, whether desktop, laptop, we can track
that you received the training and can confirm that you
received the training.
You may or may not know that information about the hotline
and it's on our internal Internet, the intranet.
But it's not the most prominent so we are going to look to
making that on our main page for employees who have a
concern, to pin that and put a telephone number or directly
at the website.
So we think we are doing well.
There are a couple of areas that we are going to improve
upon.
And I'm available to answer any questions.
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
So thank you for re-upping your efforts, the
administration's efforts, to communicate the policy to the
employees.
And you talked about some of the training, pushes, as they
call it, to push out the training and updating policies.
And I am not sure if it is a regular occurrence, but the
whistleblower provisions, I mean, there's a lot of them
already covered in the union contract, and a lot of our
employees are union employees.
So when I was talking about the whistleblower provisions as
the ordinance which is part B of this item, my efforts were
more concerned with those who are not part of the union.
So that would be upper management, executive staff such as
yourself, the brass of the fire department and the police
department.
They are not union employees.
So oftentimes, in the case of the lower cases that we hear
about in the press or in the news, it's somebody up at the
top of the food chain who is the one that has revealed
something detrimental to the organization.
So what efforts -- I would assume the push is that you do in
training hit the rank and file.
So what is being done to communicate to the upper echelon,
the executive staff employees?
>> I see exactly where you are coming from, I think.
The training, the refreshing, if you will, of this tool is
going to be all important, whether you are covered under
collective bargaining agreement or -- up to myself.
In terms of offering protection to those employees who are
not covered by, you know, a collective bargaining agreement,
or to upper management, as you stated --
>>LISA MONTELIONE: Right.
And actually when it comes to -- or part B, the memo that we
got, or letter that we got from Mr. Morgan, the chair of the
Ethics Committee had requested that they be allowed to the
time to consider the two provisions, both the whistleblower
and -- the changes to the ethics ordinances that I had asked
for.
So I am going to -- I might as well do it now -- move part B
of this discussion to October 6th.
>> Second.
>>HARRY COHEN: We have a motion from Councilman Montelione.
Seconded by Councilman Capin to move the second part of this
discussion to October 6th.
All in favor please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
All right.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.
So I am just talking to you now about what I had asked Mrs.
Crum and Mrs. Bauman about, is just the communication
policy.
And I think you have answered that question.
Thank you.
>>HARRY COHEN: Thank you very much.
We have one remaining item to deal with, and that's item
number 54, which is the discussion of a noise enforcement
officer.
That was Councilman Reddick's motion.
And if he's not here, he might prefer that we defer that to
the next meeting
We are going to be discussing noise on September 22nd.
So perhaps we could go ahead and just continue.
We could go ahead and just continue this.
>> I think he's in his office.
>>HARRY COHEN: I would entertain a motion to do that.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
>> Second.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: I guess I'll take over now.
A motion from Mr. Miranda, second by Mrs. Capin to continue
this item.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: At the same time as today.
The workshop.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Next week is a workshop, sir.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The next council meeting.
A workshop the 22nd?
>>HARRY COHEN: On noise.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mrs. Capin.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Okay.
You are opposed to the continuance?
(Laughter).
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The police department was here for a
long time so I guess they wouldn't be opposed.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: I think we have cleared our agenda.
Any new business?
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion to receive and file.
>>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion by Mr. Cohen Miranda.
Second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor?
Is there anyone that would like to speak at this time on
anything?
I see no one.
We are adjourned.
(Meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.)
DISCLAIMER:
This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete
accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of third
party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.