TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, November 19, 2015
9:00 a.m.
DISCLAIMER:
This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete
accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of third
party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
[Sounding gavel]
09:06:25 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Good morning.
We are going to call this Tampa City Council meeting to
order.
And I am going to yield to Councilman Maniscalco.
09:06:31 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Good morning, everyone.
My guest this morning is a former Florida Senator elected in
1992, went on to become Florida's Education Commissioner two
years after.
He was then Florida's Attorney General and finally elected
Governor of the great state of Florida, Governor Charlie
Crist.
09:06:58 >> Thank you very much.
Is there a microphone here or is this going to pick me up?
Technology.
Just in the air.
I'm here to give the invocation so let us pray.
Dear God, thank you for all the many blessings that you have
bestowed upon us.
Thank you for the kindness that you have shown on Tampa and
our State of Florida.
Thank you so much for everything that you have done for our
community, the beautiful weather that you provide.
Today, we pray especially for peace across our globe in this
time of incredible violence, for only your leadership can
lift us from these trying times.
Please bless those before me.
Guide them in their leadership and all the leaders of our
nation.
It's a critical time for all of us.
We have holidays coming soon to celebrate all the blessings
that you have given to us.
We also want to pray for our Buccaneers.
They are doing better, and God bless you for it.
Thank all of you for your service to our city and our state
and our country.
Thank you.
[ Pledge of Allegiance ]
09:08:26 >>FRANK REDDICK:
We made history this morning.
First time I ever heard in the prayer.
(Laughter)
All right.
Roll call.
09:08:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.
09:08:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
09:08:55 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Present.
09:08:56 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
09:08:57 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Here.
09:09:03 >>LISA MONTLEIONE:
Present.
09:09:06 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.
We have our commendation for police Officer of the Month.
Mr. Charlie Miranda.
09:09:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.
09:09:13 >> Honorable chairman, council members, my pleasure this
morning to be standing in front of you for an individual
police Officer of the Month, James C. Valentino has done his
work very diligently and was selected by his peers and the
chief to be the police Officer of the Month.
Officer, not only to do what you do every day what your men
and women do, 24-7, 365, an outstanding job for the City of
Tampa and we are honored to have you here as police Officer
of the Month.
And I'm sure the police and the assistant chief -- I did see
you.
A confession.
That wasn't me, was it?
(Laughter).
09:10:29 >> Thank you for having us here today.
This is detective James Jimmy Valentino, an almost ten year
veteran of the Tampa Police Department, recently promoted to
be a detective in district 3.
He's done some outstanding things for the citizens of
district 3 and I just want to highlight a couple of cases
for the month of October.
He did a follow-up investigation on the burglary of an
occupied dwelling.
The only evidence left behind was fingerprints.
It's not normally enough to make an arrest.
The prosecution was based on fingerprints on the outside of
the crime scene, but detective Valentino has wonderful
investigation skills and he was able to gain confessions
from the most difficult of criminals including that one who
had no legitimate reason for leaving his fingerprints on the
exterior of that scene.
Not only does Jimmy work from his desk on his cases.
He's also very, very active on the street, goes out on the
street looking for the suspects that he ultimately
investigates and the crimes.
One such occasion he was driving through the area where one
of his suspects tends to frequent, and he actually found the
suspect by himself, arrested him, brought him back to the
station and got a post-Miranda confession.
He does a great job.
He made an arrest in Tampa park.
There was a bunch of suspects inside a stolen vehicle.
They were on a complete crime spree.
Goat confessions from the suspects in that stolen vehicle,
that also did retail thefts in district one Home Depot,
Westshore mall, I hop, Family Dollar, and they also did an
attempted robbery at a cell phone near the Sulphur Springs
area.
So Jimmy, the last thing I want to mention, he has a unique
knack of getting his suspect to not only confess but has
them write apology letters to his victims so that's a
win-win situation because the victims feel vindicated when
they get an apology letter from the suspect and what better
evidence is this from the attorney's office to not only have
verbal confessions but also an apology letter.
It really kind of hits home with all of his victims.
He does an outstanding job and for everything he does for
the City of Tampa and his citizens.
We are proud to nominate him for Officer of the Month for
November of 2015.
[ Applause ]
09:13:22 >> We'll do a little dance for you.
09:13:24 >> First time I danced on TV in a long time.
Officer, I'll tell you what, everything you have done in a
short period of time almost makes you Rambo.
On behalf of Tampa City Council for Officer of the Month of
November 2015.
Thank you and God bless you and your family for doing good
work.
[ Applause ]
09:13:58 >> Vinnie Gericitano, president of Tampa PBA, and Abe
Carmack, vice president, and Gene Haines,
secretary-treasurer.
I'm very proud to state that Jimmy here is a member of the
Tampa PBA.
We are very proud of the work that Jimmy does both in
representing the Tampa PBA and keeping the citizens of this
great city safe.
I want to present to you a token of appreciation.
Thank you.
09:14:29 >> Stepp's Towing.
On behalf of Todd Stepps and Todd Stepp's family I want to
present you with this certificate for a night out for you
and your family.
Thank you for everything you do for the community.
09:14:56 >> Thank you, sir.
09:14:58 >> Kelly Nixon from the Doubletree Tampa Airport Westshore,
a two night stay for you and your family.
Thank you very much.
09:15:16 >> Jim Carson, Bill Currie Ford.
On behalf of the Currie family and myself, I would like to
present you a 2015 customized Mustang.
(Laughter)
09:15:41 >> Joe Durkin on behalf of BrightHouse Network.
Congratulations for the job you do out there.
From all your friends at Bright House, one month
complimentary services.
09:15:53 >> Steve Stickley representing Crockett's towing and
transport.
We would like to thank you for your service and your
dedication.
09:16:14 >> Thank you.
I appreciate it.
09:16:16 >> Michael Kilgore on behalf of the Gonzmart family, owners
of the Columbia restaurant for 110 years, a $110 gift card
for you and your family.
09:16:29 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
Good morning.
I think Rambo is not right.
It's supposed to be Jimmy the Rock.
Right?
I have a 15-page statement to read.
Is that all right?
(Laughter).
Okay, I'll just go to the first page.
On behalf of prestige portraits, they are going to provide
you with a complimentary package for you to have your
portrait taken.
On behalf of Bibalow's cafe, enjoy lunch or dinner of your
choice.
On behalf of the CHICH's restaurant group, lunch or dinner.
Now I have 14 more pages to go.
Is that all right?
Anyway, we appreciate what you do, and one of the things
that happens out there on the street is the first line of
defense is officer on the street, the second line of defense
is the detective who goes out and finds out why that
happened out on the street, and the third part is to put
those people who are the perpetrators in jail.
We appreciate what you do, and every day that's a commitment
that you have to make.
Here is your 14-page document.
[ Applause ]
09:18:02 >> I want to say that receiving this award is a true honor,
more than I expect.
I would like to thank City Council first off, Chief Ward,
chief O'Connor, my major, my sergeant Polk, my partner
Michael Polk who is in the back of the room, and everybody
that I work with, it's truly a team effort.
I can't take all the credit myself.
But I do appreciate this, and I appreciate all the
businesses and everything, the generosity.
It's unreal.
So thank you again.
I'm very fortunate to work for this great city, and I want
to thank you again.
I appreciate it.
[ Applause ]
09:19:29 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Item number 2.
Mr. Miranda.
09:19:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
It's my pleasure today to be here to
make a presentation to Thomas Barton Weiss, an individual
who has just turned 14, and this individual became an Eagle
Scout when he was 13 years old.
And let me say this.
I am going to make a confession.
At age 13 I couldn't even spell the word "eagle."
So what you have done is unbelievable.
He has over 90 days of elective leadership in different
positions.
He earned merit badges, scout merit badge, and he is just an
outstanding young man, an individual who at 14 now, I
believe, attending your AA degree?
I was 34 when I got my AA degree.
That's scout's honor.
But I didn't go to school till I was 33.
But what I am telling you is you are way ahead.
You are doing the right things.
We are so proud to see an individual of your age attain all
the achievements that you have done.
And the future for you is so bright.
And I wish that every young person, boy or girl, looks at
you as something to say, you know, I want to be like that
young guy.
And do the right thing.
In America and the world would be a much better place.
Today we look at things for ourselves.
You look at things, and we are so proud of.
That but for your achievement, the Boy Scout's highest honor
and dedication to your family, your community and your
country, a 50 by 25-foot brick paver, at the Tampa community
center.
Do you know how long it would take the City of Tampa to put
a 50 by 25-foot paver?
You would have to go through an RFP process, go through a
bidding process.
It would take a year.
You did it without any expense.
You did it on your own.
You created something that's there for a long, long time.
And I'm so proud that, Tampa City Council is so proud of
you, that this presentation, commendation for what you have
done and what you are going to do in the future, 14,
attaining an AA degree, that's what you want to do when you
are 18 and a lot more.
More than likely you are going to solve some of the problems
we have here and I hope you consider being an elected
official one day.
[ Applause ]
09:22:14 >> The first thing I would like to do is thank you the City
Council for recognizing me on my accomplishments, but more
importantly for your commitment and leadership to make this
city, the City of Tampa, a great place to go to school and
be a Boy Scout.
I would also like to thank my mother and father and all the
troop leaders.
Together, they all make a tremendous difference.
Boy Scouting is such a wonderful program because it takes
young boys and builds them into young men, by giving them
goals to live by.
On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and
country, to obey the scout law, help other people at all
times, keep myself physically strong, mentally awake,
morally straight.
I also do scout leadership training and more important
leadership experience.
Statistically, tomorrow, millions of young people will wake
up in America.
Some will have the values, drive and skills to cheerfully
serve their fellow man.
Many of these young people will hone skills, and some will
not have these traits, some will know nothing else but to
spend the day in idle ways hanging out talking to others and
inhibited, producing nothing with no vision for the future.
The charge we must face up to, all of us, is to help those
in the latter, less productive group, to become part of the
former, more productive group.
I believe this is our roll, and in doing so it will make
Tampa and the United States of America a better place, The
scouting national honors society, it starts with us.
Thank you all again for recognizing me and the values
scouting has taught me and still teaches many others.
[ Applause ]
09:25:07 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Our future leader. All right.
Item number 3.
Mr. Suarez.
09:25:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I could have Ms. Parsons come up to the podium.
This is Anna Parson, this year's Water Wise award winner and
we are going to have a presentation.
I think we are going to see some pictures.
So come on up.
Are they up there?
I just saw the picture of the award.
Well, we have Seattle here in the City of Tampa.
(Laughter)
Keep talking?
Okay.
So somebody told me keep talking.
Mrs. Parsons, if you could -- there we go -- of what you did
in your home in order to be the Water Wise award winner this
year.
09:26:15 >> Well, one of the things I do is take advantage of Water
Wise gardening, native plants and mulch, no lawn, as offered
by the extension services here, and they do a great job of
helping citizens use water wisely, and landscape, using
native plants and so forth, and controlling water use,
enforceable control, but also by offering a lot of training
programs and advice.
All kind of places.
So I really appreciated that.
I appreciated the help finding me the plants and teach me
how to do it.
09:27:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Where is your home located in Tampa?
09:27:06 >> In South Tampa.
09:27:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I saw that you had a walkway made out of
wood that's a little bit elevated on there.
You might have wanted to get the Eagle Scout to help you put
that together.
(Laughter)
Well, thank you for what you have done,.
09:27:29 >> Water department director.
I want to say a few words.
It's important to recognize water conservation to ensure an
adequate water supply for the future, and it's also
important to recognize people who use Florida friendly
landscaping, and microirrigation and drip to preserve our
precious resources.
I want to say thank you, Mrs. Parsons, for using water
wisely.
09:27:54 >> Well, thank you!
[ Applause ]
09:27:57 >> A drop in the bucket compared to the young man who came
before, but thank you.
09:28:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, Mrs. Parsons, for everything you
do.
09:28:36 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Anything else, Mr. Suarez?
All right, we or go to item number 4.
Mrs. Montelione.
09:28:41 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you very much, sir.
I would like to introduce Elizabeth gelman, the Executive
Director of the Florida Holocaust museum.
She came today in order to inform us about a new exhibit
that will be opening at the museum.
She'll tell us more about that in a minute.
09:29:01 >> Let me clarify.
09:29:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
It's already there.
So this exhibit gives homage to the civil rights movement in
Tampa Bay.
09:29:10 >> Correct.
And I want to thank you so much, Councilwoman Montelione,
for inviting me here.
I also want to recognize Councilman Cohen for all of his
support, and for all the support that we received from the
Tampa City Council over the years.
Florida Holocaust museum, we are lucky to have here in our
Tampa Bay area, I say we are lucky because I am a relative
newcomer to the area, so while there are things I can take
credit for, most of them I have to hand over to our board
and our founders.
I have one of my board members with me, Rene, in the
audience.
And I am just so grateful for the foresight of this group of
people.
I have a little Power Point.
There it is, great.
I want to talk about it.
Can I use this?
Is that what this is?
Here is the museum.
So we are an Internationally recognized museum.
We are one of three accredited Holocaust museums in the
United States.
The other being the U.S. Holocaust museum in Houston.
Our primary focus does education which we do through
artifacts and objects, and we reach about 150,000 students a
year inside and outside the museum in our outreach program.
We do programs in Tampa Bay.
We are also in Escambia County and Palm Beach and
Jacksonville, different programs are happening all over.
The museum is, as you can see, we talk about the charismatic
leader who came to power who was joined by other
perpetrators, and who allowed intolerance and injustice to
happen and in the end 12 million people were murdered
including 6 million Jews.
But we also talk about those who stood up and did the right
thing, which is the message for our time here.
What an extraordinary person, and we hope that we can create
a whole generation of extraordinary people who can learn at
some point in their lives, to stand up and make a decision.
Are you going to be a perpetrator, or are you going to be a
bystander or stand up for justice?
So our goal is to give students, adults, the moral comfort
to make those decisions.
We are one of the only ones in the area.
I shall we have of this wonderful collaboration with the
Tampa Police Department, and we owe a great debt of
gratitude to chief Jane Castor, in law enforcement at the
U.S. Holocaust museum.
It's there for police chiefs and it's there for the FBI and
CIA, and she came to our museum and said this is such a
valuable program, can you bring it to Tampa?
So we worked with her, and working with all 1,000 police
officers from Tampa, talking about the role in Nazi,
Germany, which is important because what happened in Nazi,
Germany is citizens became less than humans, and so it's
really important to our police officers to have an
understanding of what the role is in the city, and of course
it's protecting citizens and protecting your citizens'
rights at the same time.
It's been a fabulous program.
The officers have loved it.
And they show up at 8:00 in the morning, they are not happy
to be there and at the end of the program they are so happy
to extrapolate those programs to what is happening today.
But I want to commend you for continuing this vision and
moving forward.
We are now about to train police officers.
I will be talking about the firefighters, and interest in
Sarasota.
So really the City of Tampa started it all.
We are so incredibly thankful.
We have our permanent exhibition on the first floor, but on
the two top floors are traveling exhibitions.
Councilwoman Montelione, we do have this amazing exposition,
about the national civil rights exposition, activist
photographers of the civil right movement.
When we decided to have this two and a half years ago, we
said, well, we could get the local exhibition about Tampa's
civil rights.
We found that no one had looked at civil right in the Tampa
Bay area.
So we put this together.
And we have some testimony and we have objects and we have a
panel exhibition, and we had an extraordinary amount of
partnership programs with 35 organizations in the area,
talking about civil rights history, where we are today,
where we still have to go.
And in Tampa and down in Sarasota and in Clearwater, we are
so proud of those collaborations.
But what's exciting is that people have walked in and said,
hey, that's my dad, or that's me!
You know, so we are calling this our first iteration, we are
still taking testimonies.
So we do want to invite any of you who happened to be around
during those tumultuous times, if you have memories, things
that had you would like to contribute, we would love to be
able to take your testimony, and see different portions of
our very different community.
I do want to say if you are not able to get to the museum by
December 1st, the panel part of the exhibit without the
artifacts will be at the Hillsborough John German library in
January and February before it goes down to the Sarasota
public library.
But most of all, it's really extraordinary to see kind of
the flip side of the Holocaust, where countries came
together to demand that justice be done for their fellow
citizens.
So this is really extraordinary.
And on that, I just want to say, last of all, we received
the relevant programming, creative loafing.
If I could pick what I would like to win an award for, this
would be it.
So we are proud to be here in the Tampa Bay area.
So thank you again.
09:36:27 >>
09:36:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you very much.
You know, we experience history.
And those who come after us just see it from a distance.
They don't realize that this happens right here in our
community, and how it build the leaders that we have today,
and it created the community that we live in today.
So thank you very much for making history relevant for us,
for our young people, and for bringing it here, and to the
John F. Germany library.
So if you can't get to the actual museum you can go down the
street and see it at the library which is on Ashley drive.
Thank you very much for the work that you do.
It's so vitally important, the more years that pass, the
more we need to remind people of the relevance.
09:37:24 >> Thank you.
I have some information about the museum.
09:37:30 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you for being here today.
I had a question that I wanted to ask you.
I am the proud grandson of a World War II veteran, and like
many Americans who are related to people that fought in that
war, our family has found certain artifacts from that
period, and often the question comes up, is the Holocaust
museum interested in having people donate things that maybe
were locked away in an attic for 60 or 70 years, pieces of
the war that were brought home from Europe?
Is that something that you all collect?
09:38:12 >> I am so glad that you said that.
(Laughter)
And absolutely.
And that is really the bedrock.
We are a museum, everything on artifacts, and believe in
telling the story, artifact are the voices of people who are
no longer here.
And so, yes, the answer is yes!
We really would like -- we have over 13,500 objects in our
collection.
We are continuing to collect.
We are looking for storage space so if anyone knows of
anyone, let us No. but it's critically important to our
mission.
So thank you so much for bringing that up.
09:38:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair.
Thank you, Ms. Gelman.
I visited the U.S. Holocaust museum a few times.
One of the great things -- and Mr. Cohen mentioned something
directly to it, which is when you enter into the U.S.
Holocaust museum, the first thing you see are a list of the
battle flags of all the Army units that actually were in the
concentration camps.
However, while we were fighting against fascism in Europe,
we forgot what it meant to be a U.S. citizen here and the
way we treated people who were African-American at that
time.
And I'm glad to see that you have made that connection, that
our imperfections can be corrected.
One of the great things about our country is that we do try
to correct imperfections and that every time we look at a
government, or what society is doing in large, that we
always have to make sure that we are trying to follow what
is fair and right under the Constitution and not only about
what is -- what we perceive as something that is dangerous
or different or not part of our society at a particular
time.
So I think it's wonderful that you have these presentations
in relation to your museum and what it means.
And anytime you go to see it from Auschwitz, what will make
you free -- I'm not sure, my German is not --
09:40:34 >> You're right.
09:40:35 >> And one of the things that strikes me anytime I go to one
of these museums -- and I have been to the civil rights
museum in Atlanta, too, which is another great museum, and
it really how we failed as a nation while fighting fascism
and how we have recovered, which is not to say that we are
perfect, but we are able to correct ourselves for the most
part.
And being vigilant is what's important.
So thank you for the presentation and keep up your hard
work.
And I hope -- I think that your grandfather, Mr. Cohen, was
a gunner in World War II?
Very dangerous position to be in, and a bomber over Europe,
and hopefully some of those artifact I would like to see
them before you give them to her.
I think it's an important addition to the collection.
Thank you very much.
09:41:28 >> I will be calling.
Thank you so much.
09:41:32 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I have always envisioned having some
kind of civil rights museum locally.
And just a few blocks north of here, we have the old
Woolworth's and the lunch counter back in 1960 or so, some
took place right here.
I'm a member, and I am going to visit this weekend most
likely because I do want to see the exhibit.
But one thing I noticed, off topic, was there some contained
of recognition to Schindler in your museum or no?
09:42:07 >> We have a whole section of the museum of that we talk
about heros, people who stepped up.
09:42:12 >> Is Nicholas --
09:42:15 >> Yes.
09:42:16 >> It's a name that never comes up, he passed away a few
months ago at 106 years old.
Another wonderful positive story.
And I visited the museum several times over the years and I
know one of the visit, there's doors from a clinic in Ybor
City that has the white waiting room and colored waiting
room, and there's a lot of Tampa over that way, too.
09:42:39 >> This is Florida's history as well as --
09:42:42 >> It's a wonderful museum.
I encourage people to visit.
The train cars are very, very powerful.
I look forward to visiting the exhibit this weekend.
09:42:53 >> Thank you.
09:43:04 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
We go to approval of the agenda.
Can I get a motion?
Let's do them separate.
New business.
09:43:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I would like to pull items 39 and 61.
And for 61, Jean Duncan, I believe, is already here for
another topic.
I don't know if there's anybody here for 39 but maybe by the
time we get to that we can have somebody from the
administration, Mr. Maybe Mr. Rogero would be the
appropriate person.
So if you are listening out there, Mr. Rogero, it would be
great if you could come on down.
09:43:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Mr. Chairman, did you have any intent to
pick up 10:30 items at a time certain or is that something
you are going to take up as time goes by?
09:44:18 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
Need a new motion on new business item number 1.
09:44:23 >> I'm sorry, that might need to be an announcement that she
needs to make.
09:44:31 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Well, she's not here.
That's why I am asking.
09:44:34 >> I would ask that you hold it.
She's right outside.
09:44:36 >> Julia Mandell, City attorney.
Per the request in the memorandum which I sent to you
earlier this week, I am requesting that had you schedule a
closed session for December 3rd, 2015 meeting.
I believe I said 11:30.
11:00 o'clock was in the memo in order to discuss litigation
strategy related to expenses or potential settlement
opportunities in the St. Joseph's versus City of Tampa.
09:45:11 >> Need a motion. Motion by Mr. Cohen.
Motion second by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
All right.
Need approval. Motion from Mr. Suarez, second by Ms. Capin.
All in favor.
All right.
10:30. I will put staff on notice I am going to stop at
10:30 and do stormwater presentation.
Please be prepared.
If you are not here, make your way here.
I would like to get that done.
And people want to speak, have an opportunity to speak and
allow you to go ahead and go about the rest of your day.
Public comments.
At this time we take public comments.
Three minutes.
And we have 30 minutes set aside for public comments.
You can speak on any item except what's set for public
hearing.
09:46:11 >> I'm Ed, Ed Tillou, Sulphur Springs.
Okay.
Before I talk about what I mostly want to talk about, which
is follow-up on food choices, first, with respect to item 1,
there was an article that I don't have right now that it
went to the effect that there's more tickets issued here in
Tampa than other cities combined.
I don't know.
Out on the street, I don't see it.
I see motorists doing this, that and the other thing that's
wrong.
And jeopardizes pedestrians.
And the thing is that when you get these awards, you always
focus on crime.
You never focused on the problems of stopping like 100
motorists who are doing things that might kill pedestrians.
And in that vein, the thing is that the cop that stops 100
motorists is where we are starting the risk with this Donte
Morris fellow. He's always running the possibility that the
guy is going to come out of that car shooting.
That's a risk that I think has interfered with law
enforcement on traffic law here in Tampa, and one of the
ways of correcting that is to come around and say you want
to be see more cops give lots of tickets.
I realize that's politically unpopular, but, hey, it will
save pedestrians.
I think item 48, I just -- I support that, but I think
what's got to be realized, that should have some interface
with TIS.
I favor TIS.
But one down side of TIS is that they feed the real estate
greed machine.
They drive rent from.
People can't afford rents.
Then they become homeless.
So you have got to not deny it.
Okay.
In the context of denial, a very good issue of national
geographic, and the first thing, climate change does not
exist.
And the moon landing never happened.
The war on science.
One problem is that they sort of dismiss people concerned
about fluoridation.
But that's not really true.
There's a problem that goes with water chlorination, called
subsurface decay.
And that is on a very old and esteemed dental college in
Baltimore, and there was a lot of discussion of that.
So anyway, with respect to that, there was this.
I don't have the actual article but I will have it next
time.
Saturated fat.
Make no mistake, saturated fat is bad.
And there was some article saying you don't have to drink 2%
milk.
You do have to drink 2% milk, but lean meat --
(Bell sounds)
You just can't eat lean pork.
Lean beef.
And I'll continue with this next time.
09:49:24 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you, sir.
Next.
09:49:30 >> First I want to say glory be to God.
Thank God.
Thank God for another day, and we give God all the praise
and all the glorification.
I'm here today because I heard the young lady come up here
earlier they want to open up a museum.
She said it wasn't 6 million people that was murdered in
Germany but it was 12 million.
I want to know where was the United States when they were
murdering all them people?
Was the United States involved?
I don't think so.
The thing that we have to understand, I heard a comment on
TV the other day and I was kind of shocked at.
No, we don't have those kind of problems in the European.
All the countries that have racist problems is United States
and Canada.
The United States is racist.
They don't care nothing about Mexican, he they don't care
nothing about the Indians, don't care nothing about black
folks, don't care nothing about homeless people, they don't
care nothing about children, they just don't care nothing
about nobody and if you have your recognition about who you
care about, then I have got to let you know I care about God
almighty and Jesus Christ.
I know the church is located at 1112 East Scott Street.
And I spoke to this City Council, and told them what the
people are doing to my church.
Nobody shows up.
I guess because I got talk the truth.
Whether you believe it or not, I believe in God almighty.
It wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for God almighty and
I could care less about what you think of me.
I'm a disciple of Jesus Christ.
And now another thing we got to do.
Stop so much killing.
There's so much killing going on in the United States of
erica.
Why do we hate people in the United States of America?
Why do you hate people trying to get progress and you are
hating them with a great hate?
God has told me break down in the United States of America,
(Bell sounds)
09:52:45 >> Good morning.
My name is Don Rhode.
I have been here a few times before.
Not for some time.
But in regards to this point, for items number 6 and 7, I
wanted to point out regarding street solicitation and the
number of arrests or citations involving bicycles by the
City of Tampa police department, when you consider these
matters, please take more into consideration than just the
stand-alone number of citations.
I have heard this council in the past say that the police
must be doing a great things because of the citations, or
the police must be doing a wonderful job because there's so
many citations.
Standing alone the numbers of citations shouldn't matter
that much to you.
And because there was an earlier agenda item that covered
the Holocaust museum, and because that very eloquent and
knowledgeable speaker pointed out that there's a
relationship between civil rights, the U.S. Constitution,
that first ten in there that they call the Bill of Rights,
that when we get to item number 70 we should be thinking
about that.
Thank you.
09:54:01 >> Good morning, Tampa City Council members.
My name is Noelle Clarke, the United Nations Association
Tampa Bay chapter, director. I'm a Florida licensed
attorney and I oversee the local crisis center, meaning I
live and work in the Tampa Bay area.
On behalf of the UNA chapter board, of which some members
are here with me this morning, I would like to thank you for
considering our resolution concerning CEDAW, and we
recommend that you support it.
Passing the resolution will make City of Tampa part of a
local growing movement of cities for CEDAW.
Cities for CEDAW was launched in 2014, commission on the
status of women meeting and the conversation surrounding
gender equality on a local level across our nation.
And CEDAW has one main purpose, and that's the violation of
women's rights, and it has been ratified by 185 countries,
meaning 90% of the members of the United Nations.
Arguably the leading International law on point for gender
equality issues, but the United States still has not
ratified CEDAW.
And the lack of a U.S. Senate vote, twice by majority vote
the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations committee has recommended
that CEDAW be put for a vote but still no vote was held.
And we as a country have not done so.
Now, there's a ground swell of support on the local level.
Our mission is to call attention to CEDAW, and time for the
U.S. Senate to take note and call for a vote.
You can help us achieve this goal W.your support for the
resolution Tampa Bay will be one of the first major urban
areas in the State of Florida, second only to Gainesville.
You will add Tampa to Louisville, Cincinnati, Washington,
D.C., all of which are standing with CEDAW.
Your vote in favor of this resolution will promote its
mission of gender equality and show the resident of the City
of Tampa that their Tampa City Council acknowledges that
gender and equality is still an issue that needs to be
eradicated and your vote -- the Tampa City Council stands
with CEDAW and its mission to end gender discrimination, and
violence against women in all forms both across the world
and within our very own Tampa Bay.
We ask that you please vote in favor of the CEDAW
resolution.
Thank you for your time.
09:56:52 >> Next speaker.
Come on, speakers, we don't have all day.
09:57:01 >> Derek Chamblee, Google D-E-R-E-K-C-H-A-M-B-L-E-E, St.
Paul.
Derek Chamblee, Google Derek Chamblee St. Paul, Derek
Chamblee Tampa, Google Derek Chamblee Jeb Bush, Prescott
bush, Adolph Hitler, Nazi party, Republican party,
derogatory.
And first of all, about the bicyclists.
I want to bring it to your attention again the problems we
are having on the streets like Bayshore where the bicyclists
are on the sidewalks, and it's very difficult for the
pedestrians because there's speeding on the sidewalks, and
there really isn't anyway to get the police to do any more
than what the police are doing, as far as bicyclists, and
this is a problem also on Kennedy Boulevard on the way into
downtown and whatnot.
The bicyclists.
Okay.
And we know that's cutting across all colors because the
poor and homeless have been oppressed, not just the
bicyclists but for years by the Tampa Police Department.
And it's not a black-white thing.
And I want to talk a little bit about Jeb Bush opening this
national office in Tampa.
And recent events around the world in terms of the terrorist
attacks, and I have been before the county commissioners and
the City Council before about the -- we have been tracking
since December of 2003 and before pilots were here in Ybor
City, several times, between December 2000 and 9/11 and they
stayed in hotels on Westshore, and the FBI was tracking
their movements.
They hosted them here in Tampa and helped them get various
things.
As a matter of fact, when he was campaigning for the
presidency in 2000 in Florida, George W. Bush attempted to
get their votes.
He appeared with the Muslims, and the FBI had been tracking
them, and in fact it was omitted from the 9/11 report.
And at any rate, there tends to be some sort of link between
the Bush family and these Saudis that came over here to
train to be commercial pilots, and there is a concern that
there may be some sort of attack on the Jeb Bush national
headquarters here in Tampa.
(Bell sounds)
10:00:07 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.
Anyone else in the public wish to speak during public
comment?
All right.
Seeing none we go to staff reports.
Item number 5.
10:00:17 >>JEAN DUNCAN:
Good morning.
Jean Duncan with transportation and stormwater services.
I'm here to discuss some of the steps we have taken, in
response to the recent audit that was conducted for our
vision program.
I didn't know if you had a copy of the audit handy or not in
your packet.
I certainly have extra copies if you would like me to hand
those out.
10:00:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, Jean.
It's not in the backup Jean Gene you will be able to see a
full package proud by the audit department.
He want to give you a quick framework. This awed out was
conducted to cover the period from October 1st of 2013
to September 30th of 2014.
And during that time, August of 2014, the administration
implemented a reorganization of the former public works
department and the operations division of that department
which is about 180 stormwater, bridge, traffic and roadway
folks, incorporated into a new department which of course is
now transportation and stormwater services.
So I had the great opportunity to be appointed as your
director, and we also appointed a new operations division
manager who is here with me today.
He is a very capable, experienced manager.
He's a professional engineer, and he's particularly skilled
with dealing with not only hearing problems but dealing with
people as well.
So a great part of his leadership, we made some great
strides, sweeping changes, and in a very positive way, and
we feel we put that house back in order.
I have got some good news to be share with you in
implementing the recommendations for the audit.
Very quickly, the audit basically looked at our annual plan
to make sure it was reasonable and based on current and
objective criteria and looked at how our in-house
maintenance is performing to make sure it was done in a cost
effective manner and also looked at our pavement maintenance
contract to make sure they were adequately monitored and the
payments were properly approved.
Some summary comments that came out of the audit since its
conclusion.
Regarding the audit management plan it wags determined that
plan could actually not be reproduced using the data that
was identified, and trying to recreate the decisions that
were made.
The second conclusion was that the in-house efficiencies
could be improved, and that our pavement maintenance
contracts were being adequately monitored, but quality
control could be improved on that as well.
I would just mention a couple of the highlights.
I won't go through every single highlight in the audit
U.again if you have any questions, I would certainly be glad
to take those.
I just wanted to mention on the pavement management planning
there was a recommendation that we should document our
methodology and our decision-making process used to develop
that plan, so someone else could come in, pick it up and
know how decisions were made.
We certainly agreed with that recommendation, and we now
have a set of written standard operating procedures that
outline how that should be done.
We have a filing protocol to retain the information so it
could be extracted by others at any time, and that includes
the decision making and the pavement decision data that is
made in that pavement management planning.
The other item to point out with regard to the maintenance
plan and liability, there was a recommendation that what we
call the pavement condition index data or PCI data is sort
aftermath mathematical way to identify the condition of the
road.
It takes into consideration the cracking, the condition of
the asphalt, the age, and put that into numerical fashion so
that we can sort of see what are the worst locations and
what are the more better locations.
So it was actually identified that this information should
be updated about every three years.
And apparently, only about 9% of our entire street network
has been updated within that time frame, and we actually had
over 80% of our inventory, or street inventory, that was six
years older or more.
The significance of that is if we don't have correct and
up-to-date data, we don't make proper planning budget
negotiations as far as what we are doing in order to
maintain our roadways properly.
If we don't maintain some frequency the road conditions
deteriorate, and from going through a resurfacing situation
which is less costly than if you have to do an entire road
rebuilding which is much more costly.
So that's why we say it's critical because if we don't have
the proper information, things get neglected and costs go
up, and we certainly don't want to be creating any
additional costs for our taxpayers.
10:06:08 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Excuse me.
We would like to ask some questions as you go along.
Jean Gene okay, certainly.
10:06:17 >>FRANK REDDICK:
And one question that stands out to me in
the report is about this paving machine, and half a million
dollars for a paving machine.
10:06:27 >> Yes, that was actually my last item I was going to
highlight.
10:06:31 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
Then Mr. Miranda has a question.
10:06:32 >> If you want me to say a little about that, I can.
10:06:39 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I think what I would like to know paying
half a million dollar of a machine and it's not being
utilized.
What is the reason for that?
10:06:48 >>JEAN DUNCAN:
I can explain what is happening during this
audit time period and what's happening now.
During the audit time frame, there was a machine that was
purchased, as you said, $540,000.
We did not find a business plan that identified -- usually
the parameters that are put forward by the administration to
document why this is a good decision.
So that's one item that the audit does not uncover.
The next problem was that because of the way the crews, the
maintenance crews are being assigned their work, there was
not enough manpower being put on this machine to have it
operate at the proper industry standard.
The industry standard for this machine is about 1200 hours
per year.
1500 hours would be the maximum if you are doing interstate
work and it rolling long distances consistently.
So the audit determined that the time it was being used was
720 hours, which translates to 46% of the time, so you are
exactly right, half the time it was sitting idle and not
being used.
Part of the reason for that was because it does require five
individuals to operate, the maintenance crews were being
reassigned to clean up work on one of the contracts that we
had for resurfacing.
So instead of putting that work on the contractor who
actually had that bid work in his contract, that clean-up
work was being assigned to be the pavement crews, and
therefore there was not enough time being invested in their
time using this paving machine.
So, again, changes have been put into place.
We had changed that model in terms of assigning folks.
We have our in-house crews now not doing the clean-up work.
We have the contractor doing that clean-up work which is
part of his contract.
That has freed our crew up to actually utilize the paving
machine which they are doing -- last year to the tune of
1100 hours, which the just about at the industry standard.
And even though we have increased productivity and brought
ourselves into more of a return on our investment status, we
still believe that this particular machine is not the best
piece of equipment for our more narrow roadways.
It's really better for larger arterial interstate type of
environment.
And so we still have a plan again, concurring with the
recommendation of the audit, to salvage the machine at the
end of this contract.
We will get a $126,000 salvage return on that, which we will
invest in a smaller paving machine that is really better
suited for our residential streets.
10:09:50 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Well, someone again decided to purchase
this machine, that would not be highly utilized, and now
needed to go to a smaller version, do you think that half
million dollars that was spent was justified?
10:10:10 >>JEAN DUNCAN:
Well, I don't believe this is the best
decision at the time to purchase this piece of equipment,
but we are getting proper utilization out of it now that we
have it, now that we changed our assignments to our team,
and we plan to get full utilization until we salvage it and
get the return back from the salvage value.
So we put this situation into the best possible scenario
that we can.
10:10:37 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mr. Miranda.
10:10:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I concur with what you just said.
And it wasn't even this administration, but way back, I
remember district 6 representative Cypress Street, wanted to
pave Cypress Street and I told them don't do it.
And they said, well, it need it.
I said it's going to lift up as soon as you pave it, it's
going to come back up just like it is.
Why?
When the expressway to the north, which is higher, the water
rolls down Cypress Street between there and Kennedy
Boulevard, there was no storm drain outlets capable of
handling that long Avenue from, let's say, Dale Mabry all
the way to North Boulevard.
They paved it.
And it cost the city something 200,000.
Three and a half, four months later, guess what happened.
The same thing.
And I battled that department for about two years, and
finally there was one that really was funny but sad.
And they said, the problem with cypress is that you have
condensation from air conditioning ducts going out.
I said, are you people crazy?
That was the response that I got.
And I still shake my head.
Even though trying to do the best, you can't pave a
street -- and the problem was the City of Tampa at one time
was 80,000.
It kept expanding.
And as it expands guess what happened.
People want to build homes and roads are built but they
don't have the money to put what?
Storm drains for the water rolls off.
They built the roads.
They have to maintain them.
Now it's much costlier to maintain the road than it was to
put in the sewer system.
But it happened of that way.
And we have that problem throughout the City of Tampa, and
we try to keep the outfall -- and even there we failed.
Right up front, that's how I think.
The problems that we had in drainage, and not to roads -- I
just want to say thank you.
I can't solve a problem that already happened.
We got small problems so the big problems don't happen.
And if the machine doesn't happen the -- handle the city's
needs, we are not doing Dale Mabry.
That's not our street.
We are not doing interstate 4.
We are doing streets that are 24-foot wide, in most cases.
But we need to get something that does the work right at a
reasonable rate, and the citizens of Tampa can get a product
that lasts for a long, long time.
Thank you.
10:13:13 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mrs. Montelione.
10:13:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You know, I brought up this item here today, and I know it's
difficult to always address deficiencies especially in a
public forum like this.
But I wanted to do this for a few reasons.
One is because we recognize that's what audits are for.
We recognize deficiencies in our system.
And when we have the opportunity to have an audit of a
department, we also have an opportunity to correct the
deficiencies and to take a new look at some of the things
that need to be corrected.
So it goes a long way to say how transparent we are and
recognizing our mistakes and fixing them.
And we want to a sure people that we are now taking a
quantifiable approach to how we are addressing the repaving
of our roads and the repairs of our roads.
I nobody that some of the roads that I have in my district,
and each one of us can testify, because we drive these roads
ourselves, that, you know, they are just patchwork.
You know, there's so many times that potholes have been
repaired, and some, I have been on streets in my district
that are near gravel condition.
And then I hear from constituents that, well, why did this
street get repaved?
It's not nearly in as bad a condition as my street.
So it's on page 6 where it says of the city's 15,726 street
segments, 1420, only 9%, received inspections the last three
years, which is best practice.
It goes on to say that 62% receives inspections within the
last six to nine years.
So I want to make sure -- and you addressed it in your
response in the audit -- but I want to make sure that going
forward, we are going to address the neediest first.
So it's not a matter of, you know, a neighborhood who
screams the loudest or who makes the most phone calls or
anything like that.
We know there's a need, because we have inspected it, we
have a formula for deciding when these roads get paved, and
they are going to be done in a more equitable fashion
throughout the entire city.
And, you know, it's timely because we have a lot of
discussion going on about a possible referendum for
Hillsborough County.
I don't know if the Board of County Commissioners is even
going to vote to put the referendum on the ballot.
I hope that they do so that the citizens can decide whether
or not spending a little more in sales tax when they
purchase something is worth the investment in our
transportation system.
We don't have the fund -- and maybe you can speak a little
bit to that.
We are in this condition, and we are behind in inspections
and in repairs, because we are so limited on the funds to
spend to do this work, and we have so much catching up to
do, that in our regular general fund budget, there's not the
funding to do this kind of work.
So it really comes at a timely point in this discussion to
highlight why it is that we need additional funds for these
types of services that we provide.
10:17:01 >>JEAN DUNCAN:
Yes, I completely agree with everything that
you said and it's critical that we spend the funds we do
have in the most efficient manner.
So going back to the audit recommendation, we have
completely updated all of our roadway segments 100%, current
data on every roadway segment, a consultant contract to get
help with that, using staff as well.
We now have all that current data, and we have a plan, a
written plan.
We will be updating that data per industry standards every
three years.
Again as you said, the importance of this information to
make sure we have proper planning and prioritization, and
proper implementation, what our budgeting needs are.
So we are spending our money as efficiently as possible.
We are not letting situations occur where we have to fully
rebuild the road, which is much more costly.
We have a fairness and distribution of the dollars where
they go in terms of the condition.
Then if we do have opportunities for grants or other funding
opportunities, solid information to show what our needs are
and what our priorities are.
10:18:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
10:18:06 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mr. Suarez.
10:18:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair.
Jean, thanks so much for the report.
And as much as we have mentioned time and again, we know
that you weren't in charge of the department when this audit
was done and that you were not responsible for a lot of
these things, so you didn't have provisional control over
these units.
So I am going to preface my remarks with that so that people
understand.
The one thing that I want to find out is the process in
which we went out and purchased the wrong piece of machinery
for a large amount of money, that now we are taking a huge
bath on, which makes it harder for you to come back to us
and ask for more dollars to do any kind of paving contract,
because we are going to be much more suspicious as to what's
going on.
Now, I know that we have talked about this both publicly and
privately and said that this plan was supposed to be put
together, and supposed to be approved by at least, if I am
not mistaken, three levels of supervisors before this
purchase went into practice, okay?
And I think -- please correct me if I am wrong -- you said
none of that was done.
It was approved but without a business plan.
I correct?
10:19:12 >>JEAN DUNCAN:
Certainly I haven't seen the business plan.
There was some approval that occurred.
I don't have any information on exactly how that happened.
I can tell you that we have been purchasing equipment, for
example, understood our stormwater service assessment.
We have come to you with a couple of items already, and
there is a business plan for each of those items.
We have coordination going on with our purchasing
department.
10:19:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Well, you are answering more than I asked.
Let me finish what I was going to say.
So we went and purchased a large piece of equipment, half a
million dollar.
We are now selling it for $126,000.
Okay.
Because of the lack of both oversight and specifics given
for our own procedure in terms of what we should be doing.
So someone did not follow the procedure.
And I know, I guarantee you that you have been looking
everywhere for some kind of business plan or something to
find out what happened.
We need to know how are we going to know that process going
forward is not going to fall into -- and I think that
frankly we need to figure out exactly what happens.
Now the audit tells us what happens in terms of this
particular procedure, but we need to have some -- I don't
know how to describe it -- some way of looking at how we do
these purchases in the future, because let's face it, when
we go to the experts, meaning you and your team, we need to
make sure -- I don't know the difference between one piece
of paving equipment to another.
Believe me, no one wants me to know what that paver is for
the best price.
I am not going to know the difference.
So we have to depend on you.
How do we know we are going to be able to depend on you all
that this does not happen again?
Because we don't want to have an audit coming out two years
later saying, by the way, we screwed up again.
So what have you put in place to make sure that does not
happen again?
10:21:19 >>JEAN DUNCAN:
We have put in place that we have a written
cost benefit plan that shows -- the equipment that is needed
to buy, and that happens within the department level before
we even go out to a purchasing department or others to then
take the next step to carry out that acquisition.
Our purchasing department relies to an extent to information
we provide, and we want to put the best information together
which we have been doing to make sure it's been fully
analyzed before we take it outside of our department and
send it on to others.
And that's what we have been doing.
Again, this audit time frame was over a year ago.
We had a year to put best practices, written policies in
place, which we have done, which do exist, and so all I can
do is try to go forward in the most proper manner, following
best practices and protocols, and that's what we have been
doing for the past year.
10:22:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
In terms of investigation, in terms of how
this happened, have you turned up anything as to how this
process went awry and that a very large piece of equipment
that's expensive, and that is now costing taxpayers much
more than what we should have gotten for it -- I mean, we
need to make sure that that doesn't happen again, meaning
the strength of your supervisors and what their approval
ability is, because obviously each one of them made the same
mistake.
Now, there's only two things that I can say about that.
It's either clogs or stupidity.
Not either one of those is very good.
Collusion is worse.
So we need to make sure that are we weed out people who
don't know what they are doing, or doing things that they
shouldn't be doing.
Okay.
And I don't know what we can do about that.
Obviously the auditor is going to be the one that has these
problems solved.
I don't know if we need to launch an investigation in order
to look at this.
Because this is a huge mistake.
Again, I know it wasn't you.
And you were not the supervisor responsible for this.
But I want to make sure that whoever is still working for
this department has no say so over purchasing any piece of
equipment, and we should look at how we can get rid of those
folks because it is not a good thing, whether it's
misfeasance or malfeasance, I don't care, this stuff cannot
happen, not on this level.
I'm not sure if you have an answer in terms of
investigation.
10:23:59 >>JEAN DUNCAN:
On the investigation, I know that our
auditors did a lot of interviews to put this audit together.
I do believe they may have had some opportunity to speak to
those that made this decision back at the time.
That team of managers is now gone from the city, no longer
with us.
They haven't been with us for the past year.
So to what extent audit was able to get any specific
information from those individuals during their
investigation when they started this audit, I would
certainly speak to them about that, but I can assure you
that the individual that made these decisions at the time
are no longer on our management team, got new leadership,
got people that know proper practices and protocols, and
have written processes in place, and I feel very pleased
that we are in a very good situation now with this
particular part of our business, and I feel very confident
that these types of things are not going to happen certainly
understood my watch, under our administrator's watch, and
that's the mayor's marching orders, and we have taken those
very seriously and got took a lot of energy to get these
things corrected with our operations division.
I feel very confident, and the other audits come along, that
we are going to be in a very good outcome with that.
10:25:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, Jean.
I would like to make a motion that we have our legal
department come back to find out if there's any fall back
procedures to look at those folks who made this decision as
to either paying us back or some other recourse for us,
because I feel like this is not something that just happens.
You can't have three people sign off on a piece of equipment
that was too big for us to use on our own city streets, that
was not being used adequately enough because it was too big
to use on our city streets.
I want to find out what happened.
Because to me the auditor is the first step.
We need to do I think a little more digging and let the I
would like the legal department to come back to us with what
those procedures may be for employees that have made either
a willful or a mistake concerning contracts of this
magnitude.
And I would like them to come back -- let's say understood
staff reports on January 21st, 9 a.m.
10:26:23 >> Second.
10:26:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Let me speak to that.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Go on, Mrs. Montelione.
10:26:29 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
I know Mr. Suarez sat on the civil service board so you
probably know a little more about digging into this type of
issue in that manner than I do.
But it would trouble me to have us have the legal department
come on what seems to be a personnel issue.
So while the audit uncovers this event, the purchase of this
piece of equipment, I'm not sure if the legal department is
going to come back and tell us that it is a personnel issue
and has to be handled in a confidential manner through the
human resources division and through a review by Ms. Duncan
of, you know, the personnel involved.
10:27:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I could speak to that.
I am not saying whether or not it's a personnel issue.
My specific request is a call back part of this.
There may not be anything in terms of someone who has done
something in collusion with other employees to steal with
from the city.
I don't know if they stole or not.
But I will tell you, what it seems very strange that three
people would sign off on it and all of a sudden we have a
$500,000 piece of equipment.
And again if all three of them were incompetent, all three
of them were in collusion, I don't care.
I just want to find out the answer.
We may not be able to do anything today, but I do think it's
important when we have people who are in line who are making
decisions about pieces of equipment, if it's purchasing then
we ought to look at that.
My point is we have to do something.
Now, we can ask the department to come back and say exactly
what you just said.
And I don't know the answer to it.
10:28:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Ms. Mandell is here to clear this up.
10:28:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Well, to clear the legal question on the
fly, but I would rather have the report so they have time to
look at it.
10:28:33 >>FRANK REDDICK:
And I don't want to get into a long
discussion because we have a 10:30.
We have a motion to vote up or down.
Mr. Miranda.
10:28:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time.
But some strong words were used.
Collusion means somebody stole and got together and sharing
in some profit.
I don't know if that's a fact.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
But I can say if council members vote on something, and it
goes to court, and the council members were wrong, do we pay
back millions of dollars?
We have been sued and it cost the city millions of dollars.
And I appreciate the laws that we have.
So what I am saying is, you know, I understand there's a
mistake made.
I would like to have a report like Mr. Suarez said.
But I'm not ready to say it was collusion until I get a
report.
I'm not ready to say those things, because we make mistakes
on council.
I'm not saying this council, but bodies have sat here and
cost the city millions of dollars.
If you don't believe me, ask the legal department.
Thank you.
10:29:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If I can just go to that question which is,
you're right, we do our business in public for the most
part.
And I think that the difference is this.
There were three people that made a decision, and again I
said either malfeasance or misfeasance.
Mistakes or collusion.
I don't care which one it is.
I want to know what it was.
The problem is we can't fire anybody because they are all
gone.
So I don't know if they made a mistake.
I don't know if they were just dumb.
You know, we can't answer that question.
But I want to know.
What was it?
And there's ways that you can look at it and we can try to
figure that out.
And that's why I want the legal department to come back with
it.
I am not going to use subpoena power because I don't think
it's that level.
10:30:26 >>FRANK REDDICK:
We have a motion on the floor.
And a motion by Mr. Suarez.
Seconded by Mr. Maniscalco.
And --
10:30:39 >> A report from the legal department.
That's it.
10:30:45 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I support my colleague's intent, but I
think it's incumbent upon the mayor to make that decision
whether some people have done something wrong, and I think
the mayor should have the investigation to determine if
something has been done, or the mayor should be the one
concerned about why this equipment was purchased.
And to get back only $126,000.
So I'm just a little -- I do think it's incumbent on the
administration.
Motion by Mr. Suarez, seconded by Mr. Maniscalco.
Any further discussion on the motion?
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
10:31:31 >>THE CLERK:
[Off microphone.]
10:31:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I think the chairman said it right.
Go back to the administration.
Send a report back to us.
10:31:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I make the motion that this be referred
to the administration, the chief of the city, the mayor, the
City of Tampa, refer it back to them and have a report back
in January 21st at 9:00 in the morning, to report back
to us the findings of fact concerning the purchase of this
equipment referred to.
10:32:23 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mrs. Montelione.
Further discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
All right.
10:32:30 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So I have a motion.
I have a motion I want to make.
10:32:37 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mr. Cohen and --
10:32:38 >>HARRY COHEN:
I just want to ask a separate question now
that we have gone through the discussion of the audit and
what happened.
I want to ask you about going forward.
Because one of the things that was revealed in this audit is
that the overall condition of the pavement in the City of
Tampa is poor, and we know from the types of phone calls
that we receive at our offices, we know as councilwoman
pointed out driving the roads ourselves that we have a great
backlog of work to do in order to get our roads in better
condition.
How long of a time frame is it going to take now that you
have made some of these corrections and now that more money
has been budgeted toward these items, how long is it going
to take to lift us from the poor category into the fair
category, and, you know, heaven forbid into the good
category of road conditions?
10:33:35 >>JEAN DUNCAN:
I am going to make sure I get my numbers
straight.
We are not actually in the 47.
If you give me a moment.
That is one of the issues of the audit, that 47 was not a
correct value because of the old data.
And I'll show you what our actual rating is under the new
data that we do have.
10:33:56 >>HARRY COHEN:
I would like to know the rating and also our
projection for how long we think it's going to take to
markedly improve it.
And I have one other question.
When you are done.
Thank you.
10:34:06 >> Peter Brannan, transportation, stormwater.
We looked into the data, and we found that the configuration
and the figures they were using is not in line with federal
guidelines.
So there was a 20-point discrepancy to the good side.
We are actually closer to 60.
They are cleaning that up now.
We have our new CPI data.
And that's more consistent with the condition of the roads
in Hillsborough County, St. Pete.
We are not that far out from them.
So it's not realistic to what the pavement condition really
is.
We are also going to put together a plan to get up to the
"fair," closer to the 70s, and it's going to be a five
you're plan.
Rate now, they feel like it's going to be somewhere in the
area of $10 million a year to get us there and keep us
there.
But we are not there yet with our plans.
We have another month or so before we can roll that out of
the.
10:35:35 >>HARRY COHEN:
So the news is not all that great in the
sense that $10 million a year, it will take us at least five
years to get to a point where we are going to see a marked
improvement in the pavement.
10:35:47 >> Yes, in the past we have been getting about eight.
This year we did not.
But historically, it's not a huge margin where we want it.
But we have to do more preservation work, and keeping our
pavement in good condition once it gets put down.
And it's going to be a very complex system.
It's not just going to be --
10:36:24 >>HARRY COHEN:
I think regardless of what the real number
is, the experience of our citizens tells us that this is
still a major problem out there, and it's a constant one,
and that really leads to my final question which is this.
Conditions of roads change.
They change all the time based on weather events, based on
all kind of different things that happen.
So any plan has to be fairly elastic in order to take into
account changes on the ground.
What should citizens know when they call in to report the
dangerous conditions?
How do you evaluate where to place it in your priority, in
your queue, to make the determination of how quickly it's
going to get addressed?
And at the same time, how do you address then what may fall
on the priority list as a result of that item being moved
up?
10:37:16 >> Well, you are exactly right.
What we have in the database is not going to be our five
year plan because we have to coordinate with other agencies,
water department, wastewater, what are you tearing up next
year?
Do we have to push that off?
Things of that nature.
We try to look at districts, spreading the money fairly.
So there's a lot of things that come into play in that five
year plan, and I would really not rather broadcast out that
far and give Peoples hopes to saying we are going to do
yours in 2018, because it's dynamic.
I would rather come up with a yearly plan and then show
general, a general plan.
10:38:04 >>HARRY COHEN:
In fairness we have neighborhoods that were
told their neighborhoods were going to be repaved last year,
and they are asking rightfully so of us as our
representatives, hey, this was in the 2014 budget, we are
going into 2016, nothing has happened yet.
What should we expect?
10:38:22 >> And if we get a storm that comes in and knocks out roads,
and put the money over there, obviously.
It's not a plan to push it out that far.
I am trying note to do that; to allow it to go that far.
10:38:43 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Do you have something?
10:38:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I have always intended to make a motion
after the discussion of the audit.
Perhaps Mrs. Duncan wants to say something Jean Gene I want
to say one thing.
The existing paving machine, it was purchased.
Despite the fact it didn't have the business plan, it wasn't
the best decision to purchase, we are utilizing that machine
now, like I said, to the tune of 1100 hours last year.
It is being utilize dollars.
It wasn't being utilized to the best extent possible under
the prayer management because we didn't put the five man
craw on it on a regular basis.
We had that crew doing other clean-up work that was chosen
by the contractor.
So we are utilizing the machine and well get value back when
we salvage it in based on our contract.
And we do feel that there would be something more suited to
our narrow streets that would work better for us.
In the meantime it is a useful piece of equipment so we are
utilizing and getting our money's worth out of it right now,
being that we have it in our access to use.
I just wanted to make that comment.
It is being utilized.
It's not just sitting idle.
10:39:50 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I hope you send it out there and repave
that street.
Mrs. Montelione.
All right.
10:39:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
So the discussion went a little different direction than I
had anticipated, but I did want to bring this up because of
the go-Hillsborough and the sales tax referendum and
budgeting.
I talked to Sonya Little.
And although we just passed the budget, we are already
starting to plan for the next one.
So we'll know very soon whether or not the referendum is
going to be on the ballot.
So I would like you to keep whatever happens with that in
mind when you prepare a response.
I would like to have you come back on March 10th at
9:00 a.m. for a staff report for an update for where we are
in the maintenance, what we anticipate our needs are going
to be monetarily, so when we do go into planning for the
next budget, we know what amount of money that we may expect
to have to work with, and what the expenditures of need that
we have in the coming years for roadway repairs,
maintenance, and upkeep.
10:41:07 >>HARRY COHEN:
I don't think March 10th is a regular
meeting.
10:41:12 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay, so we don't have it.
Our calendar only goes to February.
So I was taking a stab at a Thursday in March.
How about March 3rd?
March 3rd.
10:41:22 >> Second.
10:41:24 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have a motion from Mrs. Montelione,
second by Mr. Cohen.
Further discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
All right.
We thank you.
All right.
We go to 74 and 75 and open the public hearings.
I would like the chief to come up and report on item number
6.
10:41:48 >> Assistant chief Mary O'Connor on behalf of chief Eric
Ward for your quarterly report.
The blue represents September and October of 2014.
The red represents August, September, October of this year.
These are citations.
They are down as well from the same period last year to a
similar period this year.
I want to show you where we are at.
Obviously the bike stops this year, this is the same period
last year, August, September, October.
1300 bike stops this year in those three months and 45
citations total.
You had asked last quarter for an arrest number, but before
I do that, I have the previous quarter which is May, June,
July, to August, September, October of this year, and they
are down as well.
So there are arrests resulting from bike stops and this is
quarter to quarter May-June-July to August to October of
this year.
Questions?
10:43:33 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Let me ask you one question.
There's a recent article updated version of the bicycle
ticketing that was done in the "St. Pete Times."
And it seems is article is based on performance of officers
in citing these ticket citations.
Do you have a response to that article?
10:43:59 >> Yes, sir, I do.
Over the years, we have had various ways of measuring
productivity.
Obviously, it helps the management of the police department
to know whether or not their officers are being productive,
if you will.
Approximately 8 to 10 years ago there was a productivity
ratio that was created that measured arrests and citations.
Probably not the most accurate reflection of what an officer
is doing by just measuring arrests and citations but that
was the ratio that the article was referring to.
Now further along in the article, it was stated that Chief
Ward would rather create a committee to come together and
create a new type of productivity ratio that not only
measured arrests and citations but measures community
contacts, warnings, anything that an officer can do during
his work day that would help management have an accurate
picture of what their total day looks like.
10:45:15 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Do you know whether Chief Ward has gone
forward with the recommendation, and if that's the case
who --
10:45:25 >> Yes, I do.
There was a sergeant that was quoted in the article, one of
our patrol sergeants.
She came to chief ward several months ago with a
recommendation for a new improved ratio -- not ratio,
measurement tool, and Chief Ward and staff sergeant are
working together to identify individuals within the police
department across the spectrum, you know, every rank and
different assignments that they have that come together and
look at a new way of measuring productivity.
The committee has been semi put together, if you will, and
there is an initial meeting amongst that cross section of
the department that will be coming up in the next couple of
weeks.
10:46:11 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Final question, can that committee be made
public?
10:46:15 >> Sure, any police department business is public record
anyway, so like if you are referring to like taking minutes
during that committee meeting, then I'm sure that would be
fine, yes.
10:46:29 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Questions by council?
Mr. Suarez?
10:46:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
Chief, you looked at the differences between what we were
doing before in terms of number of bike stops and citations.
And I think if you put that graphic back up from last year,
last year's numbers --
10:46:51 >> Citations?
This one?
10:46:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
Because you are looking to October 2014.
We had quite a few stops.
And then -- excuse me.
What's below that, chief?
10:47:05 >> The 2317 --
10:47:10 >> Bike stops.
So the percentage is very small in relation to how many
stops were made.
10:47:14 >> Approximately 5%.
10:47:16 >> Now we changed so that we are making -- it seems like we
are making less stops but getting more information.
We are gathering -- the question is, are we going in the
direction in which we are doing much more community contact
and understanding how and what people are doing within a
particular neighborhood as opposed to doing -- and let's
face it, just by virtue of the numbers, we are doing a lot
more stops, probably not getting a lot more information but
just kind of, you know, doing it by row instead of doing
real in-depth police work.
And that's the question, if we are doing more in-depth
police work now and less kind of random stopping.
Is that correct?
Answer the way you would have in terms of the metric --
10:48:08 >> Yes, I mean, traffic stops, bike stops, the ultimate goal
there of any stop is to identify a violation, make the stop,
and modify that driver's behavior.
So we are engaging the community either way by doing these
stops.
So your question is, you know, are we doing more community
engagement and more getting more information out of the
community themselves versus the bike stops?
I would say that, yes, Chief Ward's philosophy, and he
publicly said in recent months, was he would like to take a
more quality approach than quantity approach, whereas I
don't necessarily see that the stops themselves are
quantity, but if you want to look at the number of
citations, I think it's more important to look at the number
of citations versus the stops themselves, because if we are
truly modifying that driver's behavior, a lot of times that
modification of behavior can be done with the simplest of,
"hey, don't do that again," issue a warning and quality
community contact.
10:49:19 >> That's my point.
When you look at the sheer numbers something has changed in
the way you are performing the exact same type of operation
without the resulting stops.
So either people are out there doing a more in-depth way of
dealing with the community, which I prefer, because I think
the more we embed police officers and knowing the rhythm of
the neighborhood, as the people that are in the
neighborhood, and the be way that they are involved with
their community, the better off we are going to be in terms
of catching the real bad guys that are out there that we
need to arrest.
And I think that the numbers will probably bear that out
P.and I think the question you answered to chairman Reddick
about the committee that's going to look at kind of
tightening up those recommendations and figuring out, how do
we do a matrix that's going to look at lots of different
things in order to get not only people who are bad off the
streets and arrested for crimes that they have committed but
also to be more connected to the community?
So I applaud you for doing that at the police department,
because I do think you are going in the right direction.
10:50:30 >> The previous productivity measurement tool did have, you
know, all of those other types of activity, but I think what
might have happened was not enough education about what
supervisors should look at in the tools, and it might have
just gotten a little focused on the arrests and Tampa
citations.
Not necessarily the intent of the police chief at the time,
I'm sure, but that is just an unintended consequence.
But getting back to your question about, you know, when we
have a problem in a community, whether that's a bike theft
pattern, a robbery pattern, a burglary pattern, whatever
that pattern may be, and the first step in solving those
crimes is engaging the community, asking the community,
what's going on in your neighborhood?
What exactly -- where should we point our efforts to?
And a lot of times if you ask, then you get some really
quality answers.
And that's the direction we would like to go.
10:51:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Terrific.
Thank you, chief.
10:51:39 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Ms. Montelione.
10:51:39 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of the things we don't see from the charts that you
brought and the discussion so far -- at least I haven't --
is we were forewarned by the various sources that if we
stopped or lightened up on the new Blake stops that the
neighborhoods where these methods were being used would see
an increase in traffic.
Almost a fear tactic.
So the reason why we have more bicycle stops in certain
neighborhoods is that parts of town is because that's where
the problems are, and if we pull back, then crime is going
to run rampant.
So what, if you are ready to speak on this -- I don't know
if you have some metrics -- but can you -- is there a
correlation?
Have you seen any change in the crime rate that would
correlate to our not ticketing as many people as we have
been?
10:52:47 >> Not yet.
Year to date we are still currently down, if you will.
Every year, we try to reach a certain goal of a percentage
of crime reduction.
As you all know, our focus on -- about eleven years ago the
City of Tampa has seen about a 70% decrease in part one
crimes.
We are on target for a decrease of part one crimes this
year.
Not as significant as we would like.
I think due to a little bit of our violent crimes uptick
which we are dealing with, but overall we are on target for
the crime reduction which is good for the citizens.
10:53:29 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And I think a lot of us here felt that
way, which is why we had such a discussion.
You know, we have other methods of policing.
And just because we are not using this one doesn't mean that
crime is all of a sudden going to -- because we pulled back
on one particular technique.
So it was a concern that we all had.
At thing going back I think a couple of years, Chief Castor
was still here at the time, and I had asked her if there was
a quota that was being used for our police officers as a way
of measuring their performance.
And I believe at the time her answer was no.
So fast forward a couple of years and lots of discussion
time later, we find out that it did play into performance
evaluation, and that now we have someone -- and she talked
about how she was looking at these algorithms or metrics to
try to come up with other ways of performance evaluations
for the police department.
10:54:42 >> You know, I have been employed by TPD for 22 years now
and I have never been aware of a quota.
There was never a particular number that equaled a certain
score on a performance evaluation.
I think really that portended on the supervisors,
individual, you know, plan.
So, you know, going back to the idea of quotas, I have never
known them to exist.
10:55:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Maybe quota as a word isn't the proper
term, but from what information has come out over the months
of discussion is that there is a factor of productivity if
you are not, you know, making so many stops, or not issuing
so many tickets.
So maybe quota isn't the right terminology.
But it did factor into a productivity population.
-- calculation.
10:55:45 >> Well, obviously we are in this business to serve our
community, and the best way to serve our community I think
is with W a variety of activities, you know, throughout the
day, whether a traffic stop to try to change the driver's
behavior, for whatever violation they did, or community
contact, or if you happen to make an arrest for something,
or, you know, there's a number of things that we encourage
our police officers to be go out and have a productive day.
And what those productive days equal is a lower crime rate,
a better quality of life for our citizens.
10:56:19 >> And one last question.
I apologize if someone has already asked this.
But when could we expect these new performance measures to
be established and go into effect?
10:56:33 >> It would be hard for me to give you a time frame.
10:56:37 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Ballpark?
10:56:40 >> I would hope that far we could come up with something in
a few months.
Obviously, we are -- they have to come up with the tools to
pull the data out of our records management system in order
to, you know, measure that performance.
So, you know, I really can't say for sure until we have our
first exploratory meeting.
But I just hope within a few months.
10:57:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Maybe there's some grant that we can go
after that would supplement the personnel assigned to this.
10:57:07 >> Well, I don't think -- I don't know how to say this, but
we don't necessarily need a specific tool to measure
performance.
I think that the majority of supervisors out there know what
their troops are doing.
And, you know, when you can look at things like citizen
complaints are down, obviously that means that our police
officers are doing good quality citizen contacts.
So, you know, having the actual tool in place, while it's
important, I'm not so sure it's going to necessarily change
the behavior of our officers of the quality work they are
already doing.
10:57:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
10:57:47 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
Anything else from council?
Just remember, take it with advice, they are going to steal
your cars.
(Laughter).
We go to item number 34 and 35.
10:58:08 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Move to open 34 through 39.
10:58:11 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of the motion?
Opposed?
All right.
Number 34.
10:58:16 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Revenue and finance here to report on your
additional request as it relates to stormwater.
And if I could request that the presentation be brought up
on the screen, please.
Thing last time we came before you as relates to the
stormwater improvement program you had several questions
that you asked us to come back with additional information.
And I and my colleagues are prepared to respond to those
requests.
And we'll start out with one of the requests that was made,
is that we consider instead of the currently proposed
non-ad-valorem assessment, funding the 251 million-dollar
capital improvement program for the stormwater improvement
area which is the area that's defined as south of Fowler
with property tax revenues instead of the currently proposed
non-ad valorem assessment, which is called virtually a user
fee.
We did run that analysis, and we also spoke with our legal
department as it relates to a program that would be funded
with property tax revenues, and we determined that it would
require a city-wide property tax increase in order to fund
the program, and that in order to fund a 251 million-dollar
program, we have already shared with you that we would
actually have to issue debt to accommodate that level of
improvement, and in order to do that, just as in the case
with the non-ad valorem assessment scenario, or option, we
would have to issue bonds, but in the case, unlike for
non-ad valorem assessment bond, we would have to go to seek
voter approval in order to issue general obligation bonds.
But we did the analysis, and you are all aware that our
current millage rate is 5.7326, and if we were to move
forward with issuing bonds secured by property tax revenues
to fund the program, we would have to increase or impose a
debt service millage rate of 0.60 which would bring our
total millage rate to 6.3326.
Comparatively speaking, we have included the slide number 3
to show you and remind you where we were with the proposed
improvement assessment structure with our tier small,
medium, large, and very large residential property, the
assessment is based on the building footprint, and the
tiered structure per ESU or equivalent stormwater unit.
And for a small structure under the annual assessment
structure, annual fee when all is said and done as we
increase over a six-year period, in the sixth year, a
homeowner that falls into the small tier would pay $59.78
per year.
Then, of course, correspondingly, the medium at 98.162.68
for large and very large at 276.36 per year. Comparatively
speaking, what we just talked about with the property tax
structure, obviously based on the taxable assessed value of
a property, and this assumes that property owners are
eligible for the 50% homestead exemption, $50,000, and for a
homestead exemption, in the first line item, a property with
a taxable assessed value of $50,000 really has a value of
100,000 instead.
So the far right hand column shows you on an annual basis at
those dollar values, taxable assessed values, the
corresponding annual property tax for a homeowner that falls
in that category, the annual property tax assessed value.
And if I could bring to your attention for comparative
purposes, if you look at 100, 150 and 200, we set it at
$50,000 increments for taxable assessed value for
comparative purposes.
The corresponding annual property tax would be $60, $90, and
$120 annually respectively.
11:03:14 >> Councilman Miranda.
11:03:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Wow.
I know you are very smart, Sonya, but to digest this and put
it into a component where you can tell the bondholders that
you are going to have a target that's consistent is very
inconsistent.
11:03:37 >>SONYA LITTLE:
I'm sorry, I didn't hear.
11:03:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
To have the property evaluation change,
I guess you are talking about the assessment services and
how you collect it, if an individual does not have the money
to pay for it.
I correct?
11:03:56 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Not yet.
I haven't gotten to that part yet, sir.
11:03:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'll hold my questions for later.
You are right where I want you at.
11:04:07 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Okay.
So I'll continue with the presentation.
And if you will indulge me, and we'll skip mitigation policy
just to keep the message consistent and Jan will come back
and we'll go straight to the hardship program.
Based on your comments and concerns that we heard from
council, and basically a request of staff to consider what
can be done for hardship cases where we have homeowners that
have situations that would impair their ability to pay the
annual assessment currently proposed under the improvement
assessment program.
And in consultation with the city's housing managers, the
housing department, which this is the world they live in, so
we relied on their expertise, we came up with a proposed
hardship program and wanted to share with you the proposed
eligibility requirement.
To begin with, as it relates directly to the homeowner of
the property, at least age 65 and/or -- these are not all
inclusive, it can be unable to work because of a disability
or a veteran with a service-connected disability.
Number one, eligibility requirement.
Number two, meeting 30% of area median income for the City
of Tampa, which in the case of a one-person household is
12,400 and all the way up to six persons of 32,570 annually.
With property characteristics it has to be a single family
property with a homestead exemption, owner occupied, and
have a taxable value of less than 100,000, and based on
demographic information that we have obtained, the average
taxable values for a home within the improvement area is
$106,000.
So we are right on top of that average.
But it also has to be assessed at 1.0 ESU or less.
So it would be in the medium and small tier.
Our demographic data shows that there are a total of 51,993
single-family homes in the improvement area, and based on
demographic information we received from the Shimberg center
for housing studies at the University of Florida, for the
City of Tampa, there are 2,333 single-family homes owned by
residents greater than 65 years or older.
So we took that demographic information to come up with the
program.
So in addition to the eligibility requirement, we also
consider how one would apply.
And coming up with that, based on our timeline for budgeting
purposes, because there will be a burden to the general fund
for the hardship program, meaning the general fund would
have to provide funding.
So that, given with the fact that we have to go to an
application process, we would request that the applications
be received no longer than 2015 for next year's property tax
cycle, wand also that a recertification requirement be put
into place similar to that of the property appraiser, and
that we would have applications resubmitted every two or
three years, just to make sure that the homeowner is still
in the home and that they meet all the minimum
qualifications.
We are currently working again with our housing manager and
staff to come up with a very user friendly application,
because we want to make sure that it's user friendly,
because the program is available, but not only that, we are
currently working on raising public awareness.
We want to make sure that our residents are fully aware that
this program is available to them.
Some of the things that we are in the process of pulling
together --
11:08:36 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Before you go on to this slide, the
annual recertifications, property appraiser annual homestead
certification process on the previous slide, when we met, I
think we talked about this.
Working with the property appraiser's office, and having --
because they require certification of homestead exemptions
and things, so dovetailing with their process, and maybe
answering their questions we can answer ours at the same
time.
11:09:06 >> And we have to see if they can accommodate us.
We do have it on the checklist based on our conversation
with you.
And we'll report back to you what they tell us.
Otherwise, we have to take it -- but we'll report back.
11:09:18 >>HARRY COHEN:
Just two questions on this.
The first is, as you said, the cost of the hardship program
would have to be borne by the general fund.
And my assumption is that because you have run the analysis
of how many houses roughly might qualify based on the anal,
the age criteria, you have some sense of what the impact on
the general fund would be on an annual basis if we go
forward with this.
So my first question is wondering what number we are really
talking about.
But my second question -- and it's really not -- it's really
when we get to the mitigation credit -- is the mitigation
credits are much more difficult to predict how much they are
going to cost.
So one of the things I want to know is, how do you figure
out -- I know we are going to get to the mitigation credit
program, but it ties into this because you have to pay for
whatever it is that you are taking out.
So how do you figure if you have a mitigation program going
forward, how do you figure -- how do you estimate what the
cost of that might be to the overall program?
That's really for later.
But I do want to know what you think it would be for the
hardship program.
Then my second question is, it seems to me that the poverty
numbers are such that I don't know if the age criteria is
really totally fair.
I mean, if you are only making $12,000 a year as a single
person, whether you are 65 or not and you meet the criteria
for the size of the house, and the value of the house, I'm
not sure whether you are over 65 or not is really relevant
to the question.
As a matter of fact, the person that's over 65 might have
Social Security coming in where the person under 65 doesn't.
So they might actually be -- I'm just sort of wondering why
the age component is part of the analysis.
11:11:36 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Hopefully, in the case of solid waste, the
city's position was to develop programs that benefit the
elderly.
And basically when we were talking earlier about the
recalling things that we heard about the impact of the elder
person, we want -- that weren't able to meet the needs on an
annual basis, but that's what we based the analysis on.
11:12:05 >>HARRY COHEN:
What do you think this would cost the
general fund every year to extrapolate forward how much it
would come out as a hardship?
11:12:13 >>SONYA LITTLE:
If I can direct your attention to Slade
number 8.
We actually have that information for you.
So if we were to assume of those 230,000 that we believe
would be eligible for the proposed program, if we were to
sum that 100% of them apply and receive approval to
participate in the hardship program, you will recall how the
improvement assessment is phased in year over year, we have
built that out and applied possibly 100% of the hardship
cases.
So in the first column, you will see that we would assume
that the estimated collection that the city would not
receive from the homeowner in that first year of the program
would be 2.3, almost $2.4 million.
Of that, we assumed a percentage of them would qualify for
hardship program leaving the assistance at 105,000 but
there's also an administrative cost associated with this
program.
11:13:26 >>HARRY COHEN:
So let me ask you.
If this program were to go forward, it work replace a lot of
the money that we are spending now in our general fund
towards stormwater projects.
We have stormwater projects in this year's budget, for
example.
This would obviate the need for general fund expenditure if
the projects would be included in the assessment, correct?
11:13:54 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Two things.
The already approved service assessment that the general
fund does and has been subsidizing that program, $2 million
annually.
With this proposed improvement program, we would have to
identify any available general funds sources, the funding to
put in this --
11:14:18 >>HARRY COHEN:
I guess where I am going is there's money we
are spending on stormwater out of the general fund rate now
that we are not going to have to spend if this
improvement -- if this assessment is passed, would that
money cover the cost of this program?
11:14:34 >>SONYA LITTLE:
If this assessment is not passed, basically
projects go away, because there is currently no -- the
majority of those proposed projects under the CIP program go
away and would have to be paid on a pay-go basis as funding
is available, number one.
So we would have to really look at the available cash on
hand from general fund sources because we don't have
anything to cover these programs related to an assessment.
These projects currently.
It would have to be from other than any type -- service
assessment revenues won't cover any of the CIP projects.
So we have to identify within other available funds and the
general fund any available money to cover whatever project
or portions of projects of that we could without the benefit
of this assessment.
11:15:26 >>HARRY COHEN:
For example in this year's budget there's
about $8 million in stormwater funded out of the general
fund.
If this is passed, you don't need to continue to do that in
the years ahead.
To the tune of $8 million a year anymore.
11:15:40 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Right.
Those are the projects that are already underway.
11:15:44 >>HARRY COHEN:
I'm trying to identify where the money would
come from within the general fund to pay this expense.
11:15:53 >>SONYA LITTLE:
It would come from other -- we haven't
perfected our general fund revenues which are sales tax
revenues, local option gas tax revenue, property taxes, all
the general fund revenues, we have to figure out how to
parse it out between our operating expenses and funding.
It will have to come from somewhere in the 17 budget as we
put that budget together.
If there are no stormwater assessments, the funding that we
had put aside for the assessment under this program does not
factor in the hardship programs.
So that money is going all towards projects.
This would be an operational expense that would come from
money other than any type of stormwater fees.
11:16:53 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I am going to go back to the hardship
program eligibility requirements.
Because Councilwoman Montelione and Councilman Cohen, I did
speak to you about adding it to the tax -- to make it
available to everyone.
And Councilman Cohen, again, on the costs, what we discussed
is when you take out the disability and just have the income
levels, if I remember correctly, it was 51,000 homes.
Right?
But when you add the disability, it reduced it to 2,333.
Okay.
I just want to make sure that was the number.
That was it.
I just wanted to make sure I understood it that way.
11:18:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Little, on the hardship program, I know this is actual
at the time.
But I don't believe it's factual an application of those
numbers.
And let me explain that.
These numbers could be actual, but they vary, and they have
a variance every year.
I correct or wrong?
11:18:26 >> They could.
11:18:26 >> So that means whoever got this bond, how do they feel
comfortable if it does pass that it's actual?
Because somebody may be making 240 a week which relates to
when you make 12,000, or $400 a year, and what happens then
hopefully they work themselves up and they get where they
want to be, and do better for themselves, and I'm hoping for
that, but also on the reverse side you may have individuals
like myself, maybe I can't make the $12,000 a year.
There might be a lot of us.
And then that becomes a factual myth because the numbers are
not accurate.
So that is actual in today's standards.
But what with the application you did but it's not factual
on the reality of facts because those numbers change every
year.
That being said -- and then every year that individual has
to apply for that hardship.
We don't know how many are going to miss that.
And is there a process where they have a hearing to get back
on, of that year or they have to wait another year.
And then they have got to pay.
But I'm concerned about the whole thing.
This is like a moving pie.
It started with something and now we got the hardship
program which is needed, don't get me wrong.
But then you look at it.
And whoever pays it is paying twice because they have got to
pay for themselves and they have got to pay partly for what
they can't pay because it's coming out of general funds.
So that's another thing.
And then I look at these numbers, and it's just very hard to
follow.
When you look -- and I am not going to go into mitigation
thing that Mr. Cohen brought up but I agree with what he
said.
But it's just very, very difficult, because it doesn't
happen every day of our lives.
It happens two or three times a year in a bad year.
If it happened, I don't care what we did, there's no pie big
enough to do that.
It's just very difficult.
It's 261 million is not the actual cost.
Is it?
11:20:45 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Our numbers are 251 million.
11:20:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
That's the actual cost?
11:20:52 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Estimating.
11:20:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
But not the interest or not the payment
of 5 million to the tax collector.
11:21:00 >>SONYA LITTLE:
If I understand your question, when we are
talking about the bond issues --
11:21:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
That's what you are doing.
But they are going to pay much more than 251.
11:21:13 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Yes, they are going to pay whatever the
interest is on that $251 million over a 30-year period.
And this was structured this way because, as Mr. Baird has
indicated in several other City Council presentations, if we
are going to fund a 251 million-dollar program that we can't
do it on a pay-go basis.
So when we are looking at the bond, it's just like those
that can't afford to pay cash for a home, getting a
mortgage.
That's in essence what we are doing.
11:21:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And we call this a fee, correct?
11:21:47 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Under the currently proposed non-ad valorem
assessment, we are calling it a fee.
11:21:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
But it's collected through the tax
collector.
I correct?
11:21:57 >>SONYA LITTLE:
That's correct.
11:21:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Now the fee are collected, all water
fees, home fees, tax fees, and every other one that you
have, and stormwater and water are collected in a fees
category.
This is an exception of some sort in the tax collector.
So if it's done on a monthly basis people know what they owe
and they pay it every month.
But when it's done yearly, it's very hard for somebody to
come up with that money.
We just raised it by of $46 from 36 to 82.
And now we are going to hit them with another amount, and I
don't know.
But I don't want to just take the time -- and I apologize,
Mr. Chairman.
I have been going over this for a long, long time, but won't
until the time it comes to talk on this.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
11:22:57 >>HARRY COHEN:
Mr. Miranda, I just want to say one thing.
That is I do believe most people will pay it as a monthly
fee because most people pay it with their mortgage.
But if you have a mortgage, it's going to be in your monthly
mortgage payment.
It's only a person that doesn't have a mortgage that pays
their taxes at the end of the year in a lump sum that would
actually pay it all at once.
11:23:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
There have been a lot of questions and different approaches
proposed here today, so I am not sure what the direction is
to go with this, Mrs. Little.
When you mentioned -- when Mr. Cohen asked where the money
would come from out of the general fund and how we would
cover that, you said it was parsed out, and I wrote down gas
taxes, sales tax, and I think you said one more and I didn't
write that one down.
Property tax revenue.
So property taxes as we saw in the past with the downturn in
the economy, they are going to fluctuate, I think Mr.
Miranda hit on that.
Hopefully we are not going to see the depth of despair that
are when did just recently, the economy is recovering, so we
will be able to capture more in property tax money, but we
are still working -- I mean even in the general fund when we
had our budget presentation, was still not quite where we
should be to cover the expenses we already have.
The gas tax, we know those revenues are shrinking.
We talked about that during the budget discussion.
And even at the federal level of discussion on how to change
from a gas tax to something else.
Society we don't know where that discussion is going.
And the sales tax again with the referendum may or may not
bring in more money than we are seeing right now on our
sales tax revenues depending on which way it goes.
So we can't rely really on any one of those three as a
steady source of revenue to make up that funding.
Now, I do feel that having a hardship program is vitally
important, because just making stormwater improvement is
vitally important.
We have to look out for those who are less fortunate than
ourselves.
And if we have to fund find general revenue fund, money, to
have this program in place, I think it's well worth it
because we as a city should care about all of our citizens,
and we find the money in the general fund budget to do a lot
of other things, sometimes for park projects that pop up
here and there, or other programs or things that are put in
place that we didn't expect.
So I think of what we spend general fund money on, I think
this is a worthwhile program.
But I think we have gotten away from the initial discussion,
because we have gotten way into the hardship program of the
actual reason we are here for the stormwater fee.
And how it's collected, whether it's monthly or whether its
annually.
And there's the property tax appraiser has an option you can
pay your taxes over time, you can pay them quarterly, you
can pay them monthly, if you contact the property
appraiser's office in advance and fill out the forms, you
can pay them monthly.
It's an option available for all people.
All you have to do is ask for that option.
So if people prefer it monthly they can quarterback that
option from the property appraiser office and work that out.
So we have a lot of stormwater needs.
There is a lot of stormwater needs in my district, in
district 7 in north Tampa between Busch and Fowler, and we
have a lot of stormwater needs in South Tampa, and storms
are going to get nastier, they are going to get bigger, they
are going to happen at times that we don't expect, and they
are going to overwhelm the system, and we have to be
prepared.
Climate change is a real thing, and, you know, the storms,
the rains that are happening out in Texas, well, they
haven't happened here yet, but I believe it's just a matter
of time.
And if we don't invest in our structure now, ten years from
now we are going to be in a much worst place than we are
now, and all this come up would do is pass this decision on
to a next council and maybe one after that.
So I think I heard the other day it's mentioned the best
time to plant a tree is yesterday, and the second best time
is today.
So I think that we have to take action.
We have to bite the bullet and do what we need to do to
protect our assets for the city and to have a stormwater
system that's going to be able to accept the capacity that
I'm sure we will be seeing in the fought.
And if we don't do it now, businesses are not going to be
open to receive clients, employees are not going to be able
to get to work, plus diagnostic employ 700 plus people on
30th and Fowler, and I met with them several months back
and they had employees who could not get to work because the
stormwater problems that weighed on 30th street.
We did some infrastructure improvements.
We spent a lot of money on the Dunkin donut pond.
And when we had the storm of March 3rd in 2014, I think
it was, they still couldn't get to work because we had so
much rain in such a short period of time, and that kind of
storm is going to pop up and going to happen more often than
we have seen in the past.
And we can't have a corporation with 700 employees who can't
get to work because they can't get down the street.
So I think that overall we need to have the stormwater
improvement.
I have people telling me on one side don't do it and I have
people on the other side telling me, please do it.
So the community is split on whether or not this is a good
idea, and I personally, from my gut, thinks it's the right
thing to do.
So that's how I stand.
11:29:47 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Let me ask you, you are not the only person
speaking today, are you?
11:29:51 >>SONYA LITTLE:
No, sir.
11:29:52 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
And I hope people realize that.
And we need to realize that.
So we need questions and not commentary.
So let's get to the question so we can make sure these other
people speak, and we won't be here at 12:30 trying to
accommodate the public.
So Ms. Capin and Mr. Suarez.
11:30:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
One quick question.
Back to page 3 of your presentation, and I think this goes
back to when Mr. Miranda was originally going to start
talking but waiting for you to do the hardship.
The proposed improvement assessment structure, the ESU
versus what the property tax structure is, the reason why
that is put in the program -- I don't know if somebody in
the back can go back to page 3 so the other people in the
public can be see this, too -- is that if you are
essentially a small ESU, which is a .61, which is between
100 and 113 square feet, the annual assessment would be
59.78.
And then just roughly, if you are looking at that, the house
is 100,000 or less, did you do any study as to what that
means in terms of square footage versus what that property
value is?
11:31:12 >>SONYA LITTLE:
We just wanted to give just assuming that a
property that had that square footage, even at $250,000
value with a 50,000 exemption, we are looking at $120 at the
tax assessed value of 200,000, just to give you a
comparison, because we don't have the information so much
the averages for the ESU.
We can make an assumption.
11:31:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Right.
On the last portion of it which is the hardship program,
part of the eligibility requirements -- this goes to the
question that I think Mr. Cohen had, which is it is not just
age, it is age or the ability to work because of a
disability, or veteran with a service-connected disability.
So people who are not only elderly but people who may have a
disability, that would be eligible for this particular
program.
And, in addition, dealing with their area median income, and
what that amount would be.
So there's a couple things in there, not just one.
11:32:19 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Yes, sir.
That's correct.
11:32:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
11:32:23 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
11:32:23 >>SONYA LITTLE:
I'm almost done with my part.
And I'll turn it over to legal.
But if I could just draw your attention back to slide number
8, I just need to point out a few more things.
Just to clarify based on the conversation that I heard, the
funding would be done on an annual basis based on the budget
process, because we have to annually appropriate the funds
for the hardship program.
So there would be discussion about the possible general fund
sources available to fund this program.
But along those lines, in order to, I guess, make certain
that we have the ability, if 100% come in, that as we move
forward for that program, we would like to request that we
would have the available funding if we are projecting out
years, but it's subject to annual appropriation where we
estimated it's 100% participate in the program.
And in addition to that, so that we have the opportunity to
come back and evaluate the program for the reasons that you
just all discussed concerns about or comments about the
program, request that consideration under the proposal,
which will kind of go through the timing of which we have to
come back and seek your approval formally for the hardship
program, is to consider having a sunset program in there so
that council can review the program, we'll have data on
participation, we'll have how much it costs the general fund
to support or subsidize this program for further discussion,
and then to decide how to move forward.
So consideration for a four year sunset for discussion
purposes, and reimplementation so that we can revisit it and
evaluate it.
So council can take a look at the performance and how it's
working or not.
But certainly coming back to come up on an annual basis as
part of the annual budget process for the hardship program.
Thank you.
With that, I will turn it over to Jan McLean.
11:34:31 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Let me ask one question about the hardship
program before you step aside.
Because this is presented to us basically today, and the
public and I was sitting here thinking about this.
The public for the first time is hearing about this hardship
program.
Do you feel that for the public's opinion in regards to that
you are moving very rapidly instead of giving the public
enough notice so they can review it, determine if they
support it, something they endorse, and we are seeing it for
the first time today, and I know each one of us were briefed
about it but the public seeing this for the first time --
little.
11:35:31 >> I'll turn it over to Jan, but I am happy to discuss it
with you individually as we have done in our briefing, but
you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, as well as present the program
today but not really seek your approval today for the
program.
And I will let Jan go over the process with you.
11:35:48 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
11:35:53 >>JAN MCLEAN:
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Jan McLean with the city attorney's office to. I could
follow up with that question, but I would like to start with
the mitigation policy, if I could have slide 4, please.
As we discussed with each of you in our briefings, and as
questions have arisen over the last meetings that we have
been in front of you, there's been questions on the
mitigation policy and its implementation.
First to the actual mitigation policy.
As we indicated to you, the City of Tampa is within one of
the utilities, only 54% of which across the state of local
governments that have stormwater utilities have included a
mitigation policy within their program.
So to that extent, we are within that percentage.
At this point in time.
The staff has looked at our mitigation policy.
Based upon which it was established, the way that it's being
implemented, and from science-based position, we believe
that the mitigation policy as it stands right now with your
100% credit, two opportunities for 100% credit, is still
valid and equitable of the to bring any kind of underlying
policy to you would require separate engineering studies,
and we believe that this, the way that it was established in
2003, as a credit policy, is still a good way to move
forward.
In addition, as I have mentioned to you before, since that
time, the city has taken on significant increase regulatory
obligations under the total and maximum daily load program.
We implement projects for base management action plans to
attain the maximum daily load, we have our discharge,
permanent obligations that we have in addition, and
something that is not even impacted to the city yet but the
proposed expansion of the waters of the U.S. program that is
in litigation right now.
As that moves forward there will be significant financial
impact to local governments.
So as we stand before you right now, we believe that our
mitigation credit policy within the stormwater utility is
one that we would recommend moving forward with.
Be that as it may, we heard the comments from the public,
and we do believe that we should bring forward to you
proposed revisions to our ordinance, with regards to the
process, the mitigation credit policy.
It could be clarified.
It can be clearer and better user friendly for the public to
be able to pick up on and understand when they apply, to
whom they apply, what documents they submit, what
opportunities there are to apply through the course of the
year, not just the bond notice, and those things can be
revised and should be revised, we believe, within our
ordinance, and we would propose here today that we bring
those revisions back after the first of the year to
incorporate those procedural clarifications.
We have already taken steps based on those comments that we
have heard.
There's been a program implemented at our development
services center where if an owner or developer comes in,
does any sort of activity on their property in their
development that would potentially make them eligible for
mitigation credit, they are advised right away to seek that
determination from the stormwater division so that they
could apply for that.
It might be midyear, it might be within the notice cycle,
but they would have that opportunity and have that knowledge
at their hand.
11:39:41 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mr. Cohen.
11:39:41 >>HARRY COHEN:
Let's say you are successful in raising
public awareness about the mitigation policy.
And these things work and a lot of people find out about it
and they apply for them and they are granted.
And I want to ask these difficult questions because I think
it's very important.
This is a tough issue.
It involves a lot of money.
And I want to make sure we understand exactly what the
city's obligations are going forward.
The hardship credit, every time there's a mitigation credit,
it takes away from the whole of the assessment.
So where does the money come from?
You are shaking your head no.
11:40:30 >>JAN MCLEAN:
And that's where are I thought you might be
going from your comments earlier.
The mitigation policy, you are correct.
When we issue a credit, it reduces the amount that is
available for the program, because as we said, it squeezes
the balloon, and the credit is taken away.
However, we have a 12 year program.
So we have a lot of data.
We know we know the folks that have come in.
Yes, obviously folks can still come in and apply and the
credit policy is still available.
But that money does squeeze onto the rest of the program, as
opposed to the hardship category, that's coming out of a
different fund.
When you allow for someone to receive assistance under the
hardship category, you are taking that money from general
revenue.
So it doesn't affect the assessment.
You still have that money available for your program.
11:41:21 >>HARRY COHEN:
I don't understand that.
And I don't understand -- can you explain that again?
11:41:28 >>JAN MCLEAN:
Sure.
When you -- okay.
Let's start with hardship.
11:41:31 >>HARRY COHEN:
No, I understand the hardship.
What I'm saying is I decide based on the fact that awareness
has been raised about this to be a reply for a mitigation
credit.
I don't have one now.
I apply for one and you grant it.
Doesn't that many I pay less -- either I pay nothing or I
pay less under this program?
11:41:54 >> Yes.
11:41:55 >>HARRY COHEN:
So my question is, how do you account for
that loss of revenue?
11:42:02 >>JAN MCLEAN:
Well, okay.
11:42:05 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Basically in the numbers that have been
provided for the CIP program as Jan said, we have 12 years
of history already so we know those have been continuously
applied.
We also made certain assumptions that they would apply in
anticipation of moving forward with a capital plan.
So all the numbers that you have seen with the fees and so
forth, what we do know there's some contingency --
11:42:35 >>HARRY COHEN:
So you are assuming -- that's the answer
then.
You are assuming in the numbers that we have been given that
there will be more mitigation credits meted out and it's
factored into the whole.
And I see Mr. Baird shaking his head yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
11:42:51 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mr. Miranda?
11:42:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mitigation, residents or nonresidential, the service
provided to us sometime back, the ponds along with putting
$350,000 of current, $8.4 million operations.
I correct so far?
11:43:11 >>JAN MCLEAN:
Yes, sir.
11:43:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
That's about 4% of the cost.
Under the level of improved services, we are going to put
2.297 million of $16.19 million if it passes.
I correct?
That's about 14% of total.
But we are only going to get at max 10%.
So how is that equitable to anyone?
11:43:40 >> >>JAN MCLEAN:
Right now we are proposing that it stays at
10%.
If you want to increase it, that would be a possibility that
we would come back and revise the mitigation --
11:43:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
It's not what I want, it's what's right.
11:43:55 >> If council, administration wanted to suggest that we keep
it comparable to the differences and the costs to maintain a
pond, then we could carry it forward.
What we are saying here to you today is that 10% is what we
believe should be allowed in light of the increased
regulatory obligations, that 10% is still fair, especially
when compared to 46% of the utilities across the state don't
even have a mitigation credit policy.
11:44:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And I want to ask everybody to speak,
would you vote for this if you were here on this side?
That's the problem.
So the next thing is this.
We are going to tell the public all these good things here,
and they don't know about it.
There's only one problem with that.
St. Pete just had an election.
Two out of ten people voted.
Eight out of ten did not vote.
And they knew there was an election.
We have an election here, the same thing, 20%.
You have 80%, they are busy, they are out trying to make a
living and trying to do whatever they want to do in life,
and I don't think they are going to realize what's happening
here, and the poor people who really need it are not going
to come forward in great numbers.
That's my assessment of this.
But if we look at something, and our overall operation of
maintenance is going to be 14% higher or 10% higher, or 4 to
14, and we are only going to get 10, but from what I have
read, it says in order to receive the mitigation credit for
the purposes of an eligible nonresidential property, it
shall be required to provide the director with drawings
mitigation facility sealed by registered professional
engineer and certified from a registered professional
engineer as to the standard of retention -- am I right in
reading this the way I read it?
11:45:54 >>JAN MCLEAN:
Are you reading from our ordinance?
11:45:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'm just saying this.
Is that the for nonresidentials that they have to have the
drawing certified by an engineer?
When I wrote them myself?
I'm not as smart as you are.
Oh-oh, here it comes.
Now I have to talk to the engineer.
11:46:21 >>BRAD BAIRD:
Good morning.
They have the option of --
11:46:25 >> I'm sorry Brad Baird, public utilities public works
administrator.
That's the first option is to submit a drawing, signed and
sealed by registered professional engineer.
However, if you go on to read, you can provide, or any other
documentation that would be sufficient to demonstrate that
you are mitigating a stormwater flow to the city assessment.
And that encompasses a lot of things.
I said last time there could be a site plan that shows the
ponds and how much they retain.
And our engineer staff can review that, and determine
whether or not a mitigation credit applies.
Thank you.
11:47:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Wait a minute, don't leave.
You just got me going here.
So then does that mean that the city has the right to review
those plans at no charge, or with a charge?
11:47:27 >>BRAD BAIRD:
With no charge.
11:47:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Are you sure that the city will review
these plans with no charge?
Or city charge.
The city has the right to charge?
11:47:39 >>BRAD BAIRD:
I don't know if we have the right to charge
but we do not charge for that review.
It's done by our stormwater engineering staff.
And now is part of the permitting process, that that comes
in, and on that set of plans, they will be notified.
You may be eligible, so please get with our stormwater
engineering staff for that review.
11:48:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
The next thing is this.
The lottery certainly fooled a lot of people.
They said we are going to help the schools.
But whatever money they collected they took out.
We got 8 million this year, and if this passes, that 8
million will reduce somewhere along the line to somewhat
less.
That's the animal that we live in.
Nothing on this administration.
But the administration to come, and my question to myself
is, Charlie, listen to yourself.
And I said, self, what is it?
And they said, is this going to solve the problem?
100%.
And the answer is, self, no, it's not going to solve the
problem 100%.
What I am trying to say is under the Greco administration, I
remember having this discussion with the mayor, and at that
time, 14 years ago or so, there was over a billion dollars
to solve some of this problem.
So we are spending 251, and I'm saying to myself, how is
this going to solve this problem?
We can't control nature.
I don't have snow drifts.
I don't have tornado.
Once in a while, I have to say.
That but I don't have the problem that they have up north.
Yes, I am surrounded by water.
And when I look at all those cities that we looked at, on
stormwater charges, I suspect now we are down here, we are
going to be like number 1.
I correct when that happens?
I forget the charge.
Well, let me see if I can find it here.
Number 2 or 3.
But all the others, all those cities that we are looking at,
they are right on the water.
I have water around me.
And I do have problems.
I will admit it.
And some people aren't going to like me, but it doesn't
solve the problem.
It doesn't even save 50% of the problem.
It doesn't say 30% of the problem.
It's just a problem that I have got to throw money at.
I don't mind sten spending the money that's going to solve
the problem.
But in my estimation, it won't solve the problem.
In fact, there's an article written August 27, 2015 by Mr.
Joe brown, very nice gay.
He's talking about mayor Dick Greco.
And he says that a problem that we have here has been
neglected for so long, and we neglected it ourselves.
I say that the problem that we had in August and July was
caused mainly 30% of it our fault because our POD ponds
outfall and ditches were not properly maintained for a long
time.
And I say that because I know for a fact that in June of 14
we let a contract out and it was by an individual who had in
a reason to get that contract.
Got the contract, and he had it June, July, August,
September, and guess what happened.
The contract was pulled because he did a lousy job.
And at that time, we had a problem.
We had to go not to number 2 and not to number 3.
We had to go to number 4 to get that done, because you know
why?
Number 2 and 3 -- and I have a memo on that it's picked up,
I don't know how, through my intelligence service, and it
came out that two or three, Mr. Chairman, had the same
people and the same equipment being shared.
They would go to jail, like Mr. Suarez said.
I agree with you in that case.
So I say, what's going on here?
You had to come in and sweep it up to do it right.
And I admire you for that.
That doesn't mean I am going to vote for this because that
doesn't solve the problem.
We are already solving the problem partwise.
We don't know if what we are going to do, we increase it 30,
$46, $82 a year on POD.
And if that happens I believe that 30% of that problem will
be done.
You will have better outflow.
However, I can spend $10 billion -- and this happens at high
tides, I am going to be swimming, no matter what I spend,
because the water has got to go out.
It can't go in nowhere.
I'm pumping water out.
It's going to come back at me.
So I say, what am I doing?
I would like to solve it.
But if I can't use that street that day, maybe I have a hard
time, don't go to work.
I understand that.
But spending this money, you still ain't going to go to
work.
You go from the windshield down to the middle of the door.
Still can't drive.
That's just my opinion, Mr. Chairman.
But I have nothing against you, sir.
I want you to know that.
11:52:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm glad, Mr. Baird, that you brought up
when new projects come in, they are going to be alerted to
the fact whether or not they would possibly have mitigation
credit coming to them, because all of the projects that we
have seen coming in to date had not been receiving that
advice.
So it's going to assist people with new projects, because
I'm sure there are lots of folks out there who have projects
who -- or who have property that qualify but never applied
because they didn't know.
So there is a lot of communication and awareness that needs
to go on, and I think that's a marvelous step for the new
folks, and maybe through some of this discussion, maybe
through some of the media coverage, it will get out to
others that, you know, if you think that you might have a
cause to apply for mitigation credit, come on in, bring what
you have, stormwater will take a look at it and see whether
or not it meets the test.
So that's a good thing.
And my other questions are for Ms. Little.
So you are off the hook for a moment.
11:54:01 >>BRAD BAIRD:
Jan has not finished her part.
11:54:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, if she can take a stab at
answering these questions.
Maybe in tandem.
But I would like to speak with --
11:54:15 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Before you speak, let me find out from the
board.
You haven't completed your report, right?
Your portion.
You have your portion, is that correct?
I just want to get it in order.
11:54:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, sir.
To address some of the issues that my colleague brought up.
The funds that we would be collecting, are they kept
separate from other -- from other revenues so that we
identify exactly how much money is coming into the
stormwater fund?
11:55:00 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Yes, ma'am.
And they will have to be.
And because --
11:55:06 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Speak up just a little bit.
11:55:07 >>SONYA LITTLE:
I'm sorry.
Is that better?
They will have to be because they will secure bond, so they
will be held with a trustee.
11:55:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
That was my second question.
Thank you very much for stating that.
So we can't spend -- it's not like the lottery.
I just want to get that out in the open and clear.
It is nothing like the lottery.
We can't take these moneys in and spend them on whatever
fill in the blank we want.
We have to spend it on projects.
11:55:37 >>SONYA LITTLE:
That's right.
We are issuing --
11:55:40 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And if we don't the bonding companies
will come after us and revoke that bond and we will be in
big, big trouble.
11:55:47 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Absolutely.
And another component of that, if I may, please, you have
the large majority of those funds going into an account held
by a trustee on behalf of the bondholders to pay the annual
debt service, and any pay-go projects come before you for
your annual appropriations during the budget.
11:56:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
During the capital improvement budget
process.
Okay.
So do we already have a list of needs that would be funded
if this were to pass?
In previous presentations we have received a list of those
projects?
11:56:27 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Yes, ma'am.
11:56:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So there would be a straight line drawn
between the money we collect and the projects that we are
funding, and if those projects don't get built, then this
body can ask those questions and say, what's happened to
these projects you said were going to build?
And where is the money being spent?
If not on this project, what other projects preceded that
one?
We may have a catastrophic event, something might collapse,
we might have to spend a lot of money for an emergency
situation, and we pair comes with major problems that we
didn't anticipate that wasn't on the original list.
So, you know, there might be -- I just wanted to make that
clear because I don't want anybody in the public to be think
that they can't trust us with our money -- or with their
money.
We pay taxes, too.
So it's all of our money.
All of the staff members and everybody pays into this fund.
So, you know, I really work very, very hard as all of us do
to communicate with the public. We all get questions.
We all get e-mails.
We all get phone calls and we go out to the public and talk
with supervisors in elevators as the case may be about what
we are doing, and why we are doing it.
11:57:42 >>SONYA LITTLE:
To answer that, separately, you will have
literally hundred MS of bondholders, if not thousands of
bondholders, and the credit agencies, everybody watching us,
and independent banks who have to hold those funds as we
establish an account for that purpose.
11:58:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
And my agent brought me my stormwater file when we started
this discussion.
And I do have a list of projects here that have been
identified.
And I had the list.
I am probably not going to put my hands on it quickly.
But comparatively, where we fall with other communities
across the state.
And true, we have been, you know, at the bottom third of
that list, and we will still be at the top third of that
list, but other municipalities and other jurisdictions are
going to be doing the same thing.
We are doing it before they are, so other communities have
beat us to it and raised their rates, but I think that, you
know, it's just a matter of time before a lot of places
around the state are going to be doing the same thing we are
right now.
Thank you.
11:59:00 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right, Mr. Cohen, and before you get
started --
11:59:07 >> An additional 45 minutes.
At least a half an hour.
(Laughter).
11:59:13 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
Mr. Cohen and then Mr. Suarez, and then we'll go to the
public.
Motion from Mr. Cohen.
Seconded by Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
Okay.
11:59:28 >>HARRY COHEN:
I just wanted to register -- and I warned
Mr. Miranda before he left the room that I was going to say
that I just want to register my disagreement with something
that he said.
I don't think it's a Maurer of whether or not to do this is
whether or not you can solve 100% of the problem.
I don't think anyone has advertised that we are looking at
solving 100% of the problem.
But what I hear constantly from my constituents, from
neighborhood associations, from people that were affected by
the flooding this summer, is they would like to us do
something.
They would like us to be proactive and take this situation
seriously and start to address the fact that it's getting
worse.
It's no longer just a question of driving down a road and
being inconvenienced.
It's a question of a house that has been sitting there for
45 years, now for the first time having water in their
garage and in their kitchen.
It's cars being swept off the road, and we see the pictures.
Cars being swept off the road because the waters have gotten
so high that it becomes a hazard to be out, fits been
raining for ten minutes.
So I don't think that we are measuring this by 100% success.
If we end with 50% success, if we end up with 65% success,
if we at least can satisfy ourselves that we are making an
effort to do something about this, I think it is a
worthwhile investment.
And I just wanted to make that statement before everyone
else speaks.
Thank you.
12:01:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Ms. McLean, now the mitigation policy is
something that you and I talked about many, many, many
times.
And I have told you before that I am not a real big fan of
the way that mitigation policy is written.
I know that legally we have certain options that we can look
at, but I do think -- and I have always believed that the
reason why we have mitigation policies, and we have the tax
itself or the assessment itself in order to solve the
problem, is to give people the opportunity to do things that
are going to be better for the overall stormwater projects.
So as an example, I don't want to keep building things that
are going to have more runoff just because they are paying a
tax or an assessment.
To me it just flies in the face of intelligence, in terms of
how we have to design projects, and give people the
opportunity to save money on an assessment because they are
doing something the right way.
Okay.
Now having said all of that, is there a possibility that we
could create a different type of mitigation policy?
First I am going to ask the question on commercial.
Then I will talk to be you a little bit about residential.
That allows people to make an investment into their own
property that mitt Gays gaits as much stormwater as possible
so they can reduce their overall assessment over the course
of that 30 years, if they are going to be charged?
You know, I want to give people the chance to be able to
say, look, I am going to do this, it's going to cost me 20%
of what the total amount would be if I paid this assessment
over 30 years, and I want to get some credit for having
reduced my burden on the stormwater system.
Is there a way that we can do something like that in order
to give bet credit for mitigating stormwater runoff?
The first question for commercial.
12:03:08 >>JAN MCLEAN:
They have that ability to do that now,
understood our mitigation credit policy, a commercial is in
the best position to be able to do that.
It's based on impervious on their parcel.
So let's just say, you know, one end of the spectrum, and
their parcel is totally covered in impervious surface.
They can go and directly decrease their impervious, which
would directly decrease their assessment.
They can put in treatment.
They can put in vaults.
But impervious is the driver.
12:03:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
But the question is not about what they can
do.
It's about the amount of credit they are able to receive for
them putting together something to mitigate.
And my point is that the 10% may be not enough to change
that action of that particular property owner in order to
invest in their properties to mitigate the stormwater
runoff.
That's the question I had.
And I don't know if there's a way that you can answer that
from the legal standpoint.
I want to know if there's a procedure that we can put in
place that allows that.
12:04:17 >> >>JAN MCLEAN:
Well, there's two steps.
And I think maybe we kind of Slade past the first one and
maybe I wasn't clear on that, and then we'll bring Mr. Baird
up with his engineering expertise.
Your first step is that your assessment is based on the
ount of impervious that's on your parcel.
So you reduce your assessment by reducing your impervious.
That's a direct assessment.
Then if you have other activities you have done, then you
can make a determination whether you qualify for 100%
because of the activities that you have done or the 10%.
12:04:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I guess my point, and you may not be able to
answer this because you are answering it from the legal
standpoint of it which is what the procedure is, but in
terms of the real cost, and maybe we need a smart engineer
to do that.
Mr. Baird is a smart engineer.
It may not be worth to the me to do any mitigation because I
only going to get either 10% or 100%.
My point is that there's no grade of scale to say if you put
in these things or you do this in terms of reducing your
impervious surface, you are going to be at 100% of the
credit.
There's different steps that you go through but nothing that
has finality to it, and maybe you can't as a final document.
I don't know the answer to that.
But I think that that's what makes people have a little bit
of a problem with mitigation because you are like, okay,
what do I have to invest in order to get 100% of the credit?
Is it worth it to me to spend this money to try and get the
mitigation?
And if you spend a lot of money and all of a sudden they
say, well, 10%, maybe it's not that good.
I don't know what the value is going to be for that.
Mr. Baird.
12:06:11 >>BRAD BAIRD:
Thank you.
Actually, commercial property has a huge advantage over
residential in that they are not in a tier system, you know,
based on a statistical analysis.
So they can reduce their costs directly 100% for each ESU
they reduce, and they can do that -- and I'll give you an
example.
If puff 100,000 square feet of impervious area, all asphalt,
you reduce that to 50,000 square feet, and of course
dividing that by the 33-10 to get three ESUs, you are
reducing your assessment by half, directly, one for one, and
then you would have to, of course, measure that that year,
and on the tax roll, their impervious area would have to be
reduced.
So that's a huge advantage, way more so than incorporating
that into a mitigation credit.
And I would submit that financial incentive would be huge to
that business, especially if they are predominantly
impervious.
12:07:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I may have made this point to you privately
and I think I did, and I will throat out there, which is if
I am a car dealership and I have 100,000 square feet of
impervious surface and I go, now what?
I am going to put a bunch of pavers and reduce my impervious
surface by X%, let's say 50%.
You all would go out there and say, you know what?
You are right.
You have reduced it by 50% and we are going to give you that
credit S.that contained of what you are talking about?
That's what's important here so that people can have the
option of saying, I can invest this, and I am going to save
X number of dollars over the course of the 30 years, because
it is a large ask for somebody who has a lot of impervious
surface, and regardless of whatever business it is, you have
got a budget for this each and every year.
Now you have got to make a decision of increasing sales or
increasing, you know, whatever it is producing a product in
order for you to have that ability to pay that assessment.
So I want to be able to give everyone a shot at trying to
reduce their assessment, and at the same time, because they
are reducing the impervious surface it's going to help the
strain on our stormwater system.
I think we need to be more clear on that, and that's
something if I am not mistaken, Ms. McLean, we can talk
about regardless of whether or not this goes forward, and I
think that's something we should be laser focused on if this
thing goes forward.
12:08:58 >>BRAD BAIRD:
I would agree with all of that with one
exception.
I would not use pavers as an example for pervious, but turf
block or grass or mulch or something like that, that is
pervious.
12:09:11 >> That's why they pay you the big bucks.
12:09:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
One thing, Mr. Chairman, and I'll stop.
It depends on where you live because let's say 2200 square
foot of a house, if that house is in West Tampa, that same
square amount in South Tampa is worth three to four times
more.
Those two houses are going to pay the same.
Not based on income.
It's based on square footage of something.
I correct?
12:09:45 >>BRAD BAIRD:
Of impervious area.
12:09:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Right.
I'm just saying if you are looking at a structure and it's
2200 square fat West Tampa or any where else, it depends on
the neighborhood that you live in based on the value of the
properties around you, but the actual value of that building
is -- but we are not looking at.
That we are looking at a squire footage amount solely, and
therefore you pay the same as somebody maybe lives in a
million dollar house and you live in one that cost 150, you
pay the same.
12:10:19 >>BRAD BAIRD:
Yes.
Just for clarification that is because that is the same
purchased to our stormwater system is created by both
properties.
12:10:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I know that.
The same burden when you drive the street and buy gas and
everything else.
12:10:31 >>BRAD BAIRD:
I'll turn it over to Jan.
12:10:33 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Do you want to take up your point and then
go to public comment?
12:10:36 >> I'll give it a shot.
Okay.
12:10:43 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes, then public comment.
12:10:45 >>JAN MCLEAN:
That concludes my remarks on mitigation.
(Laughter).
And then we move on to slide number 9, which set forth the
time lane for the actions that we have in front of us today.
Thank you.
I'm technology challenged.
In front of you today is the continued public hearing, so we
ask for action on the final resolution on the stormwater
improvement assessment.
That would be one action that we would request of the
council today.
The second action as you can see is a motion directing staff
to return with amendments to revise chapter 21 to reflect
the clarifications for the process for the mitigation
policy.
And the third one, if the council so desires, would be a
motion to direct staff to return with a resolution creating
the hardship program which would include all of the elements
that were presented to you today by Ms. Little on all the
different slides.
So those would be the three things that we would ask
individual votes from you today.
in January and February, we anticipate in January coming
back before you if the council opposes to move the hardship
program to bring that back to you in late January and in
March to bring back the proposed revisions to the ordinance
for first reading and second reading to reflect.
The clarification.
To the mitigation.
Credit policy.
I apologize that I overlooked it from Mr. Suarez.
Can you direct us to revise the mitigation credit policy?
Yes, you can.
It's adopted by separate resolution.
We could do that based on direction from you.
We would have to do it fairly early on in the process in the
spring so that we could incorporate that and have that in
place for the certification of the roll next August for your
annual service assessment and your certification of the roll
for the improvement assessment if you approve that today.
That concludes my presentation.
12:13:07 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I am going to ask you a question.
If I read the resolution, I don't see anything there about
hardship program.
I don't see anything about chapter 21 mitigation.
So this is in the resolution that's before us.
12:13:25 >>JAN MCLEAN:
The final resolution for the improvement
assessment has the improvement assessment and includes the
mitigation policy as it exists today, because that was in
your initial resolution, the nexus of those programs are in
existence.
It does not reflect the creation of the hardship program,
and we would bring that resolution back to you because that
would be created separately, just like your mitigation
credit policy is created by separate resolutions with a
nexus to your assessment resolution.
12:13:59 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Okay.
We go to public comments.
Anyone wishing to speak on item number 74, please come
forward.
You have three minutes.
State your name and address.
Item number 74.
Three minutes.
12:14:13 >> Certainly.
My name is Richard Nordstrom.
I live at 4317 south Lois.
The few things that were already brought up today were
comparing it to replacing the funds of the lottery.
Well, what the honorable Councilwoman spoke to was not that
they replace the funds to the lottery.
Of what they did is they manipulated it to where the general
budget is no longer funding those items.
That's not what we want to do.
Your general budget already allows for public development,
public works projects.
Then you are trying to refund them with a tax.
It is a tax.
Make no mistake about this.
This is not an assessment.
This is a tax that will double what the City of Tampa is
making in taxes on my property.
It will double it.
The City of Tampa just showed that they issued a record
2.4 billion dollars in building permits.
We have already have an extra 400,000,000 on building
permits in taxable property that will be coming into the
general budget.
That certainly is a lot of funds for doing problems.
The City of Tampa just sold the Hogan's Beach Hotel.
It wag originally appraised --
12:16:07 >> I'm sorry to interrupt, sir, but the city didn't own the
Hogans Beach -- it never did. It's a private property.
12:16:15 >> It's a City of Tampa property that you collect money from
it.
12:16:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
No, it's not.
12:16:21 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Let me -- let the person finish with what
he has to say.
If he wants to -- we want to correct any statement, but not
go back and forth with the dialogue.
Say what you have to say.
12:16:36 >> Okay.
The City of Tampa was collecting money on this property, for
34 million.
They were collecting it on a taxable value of 14 million.
It sold for 20 million more than that.
So the property taxes in the City of Tampa are way too
underappraised, that we could raise the City of Tampa taxes
by making them pay their fair share even.
The other information was the rain -- whether it is going to
continue. We had an expert evidently that said yes.
The weather is going to get worse.
I don't think so.
I don't think the climate expert will agree with that.
Otherwise, if you would believe that, we are going to have
to --
(Bell sounds).
12:17:32 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you, sir.
12:17:33 >> She interrupted me.
12:17:35 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Your time is was restored.
Your time is up, sir.
Thank you.
Next speaker.
12:17:48 >> Patrick Manteiga, 3210 East 7th Avenue.
You have been asked to pass the largest tax increase in the
city's history.
You have been asked to increase our taxes by over 10%.
You saw the numbers on the millage rate.
And what I find interesting is that you don't want to pass
it on all of us.
The next person is going to have it, the next person, they
won't pay, a person with less property will.
It's going to be a hodgepodge thing.
And part of it is because, you know, they are not accounting
for the streets.
I heard somebody talk about 30th street.
I'm told that the streets we aren't sharing.
But the people who have 100% of the mitigation, they don't
cause any problems.
So the sewer system, it's just where the water runs.
The public sewer system, can't assess that square footage
and this tax doesn't account for that square footage.
But the water is on it.
But I want to show you something.
You are getting bad science, getting bad information.
I looked at several properties.
15,000 properties.
I don't not how to operate this.
But this is the only written document to eliminate this
person's tax.
This is the map with it and shows this piece of property
that's along the river.
It doesn't show that it's touching the water.
The water is flowing into the river.
Well, I have to pay to clean my stormwater.
I pay to mitigate it.
This piece is right on the river.
The storm drains surrounding it so that wasn't doesn't flow
off his property from it.
And this is all within the fail.
You have 15,000 files out there.
There's no information.
You have 2003, the city will not set them again.
This process here has a huge aquifer on it and mitigation.
All the properties around the airport get mitigation credit.
When you take a look at the storm map it's riddled.
(Bell sounds)
I would like to have an extra minute.
I have Mark Bentley's minute.
So here is the other piece of that.
And the storm system is all the way around it and yet it's
zero.
There is file after file with nothing in it.
There is no engineering report.
There's no report about doesn't touch the water.
In fact there's no standard in the City of Tampa about how
much water you have to have for mitigation creation.
(Bell sounds)
Like I said, it doesn't have runoff as well.
So without that --
12:21:10 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Next speaker.
12:21:12 >> Jerry Frankhouser, west side neighborhood association.
We would like to thank Harry for coming to our meeting and
giving us an explanation of all the problems, and good
things about this project.
I have heard no complaints about it in our neighborhood.
Also, no complaints at the meeting that we attended the
second meeting.
As far as Charlie goes, yes, Charlie, I would vote for it.
Thank you.
12:21:45 >> Mike Peterson on behalf of greater Tampa association of
realtors.
Again, we oppose it and consider that really not much has
changed since we last talked about it.
Or we might get around to doing the hardship program,
depending on how that plays out, and we are going to talk
about doing something with mitigation.
An example, if I am on Kennedy and I am currently doing no
stormwater improvements because I built a long time ago, and
I want to now improve, but I don't want to lose space for
sparkling -- parking, I might want to do a vault.
A vault is very expensive and I still want to park over the
top.
And Councilman Suarez pointed out I am not going to do that
for a 10% credit.
So I think you really need to consider whether there needs
to be some interim, whether it's at least up to a 50% number
or you have a 25, 50, whatever.
I understand the desire to get money, and you need money.
But we seem to be shoving this particular proposal forward
regardless, and we hear about inequity between types of
properties.
Inequities between the value of the property.
And equities between where they sit in the city.
And these aren't new issues.
You heard about them from the start.
But yet for the most part, the proposal before you hasn't
really changed a bit to address them.
We talked about, well, we'll get around to be addressing
them.
Therefore, we still remain concerned and we still remain
opposed because we would like to see what the fixes really
are going to be, probably, to be see if it's really made it
more fair than it currently exists.
So at this point we still stand opposed, and I think you
need to work this mitigation problem far more than what you
did.
12:23:36 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Next speaker.
12:23:37 >> Marlin Anderson.
I'm the president of the Sunset Park homeowners association.
Stormwater has always been a huge issue for Sunset Park
because we are near the water, a lot of our properties are
affected heavily by the flooding.
That type of thing.
And I know that during Pam Iorio's tenure we got the
stormwater fee which is a big improvement and now we are
increasing it so we can get better maintenance.
I want to thank you for doing that and for raising my taxes
to do that.
And we have to finish this off.
We have to do something about capital improvements.
We can't have -- Dale Mabry is one of our -- our major
thoroughfare down the heart of the city.
Can't have that flooding like it does in South Tampa.
We have been talking about this for decades.
We need to do something about this.
So once again, I thank you for raising my taxes in
September.
And please raise my taxes again so we can get this
stormwater capital improvement program through.
Thank you.
12:24:44 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.
Next speaker.
12:24:45 >>GINA GRIMES:
Hill, Ward, Henderson, 101 East Kennedy
Boulevard.
I represent Asbury Automotives that has four properties that
are subject to this improvement fee.
I wrote a letter to you back in August and I wanted to
detail about all of my concerns.
And I said this before in other hearings.
It's not what you are doing but it's the way you are going
about it.
I met with staff twice now during the series of these
various hearings, and staff has been very easy to deal with
and very cooperative.
I just don't agree with their conclusions and their
responses.
My main focus has been the mitigation credits and the way
that they are structured.
And the issue is the amount of the credit and how you are
obtain the credit.
The policy says one thing, but yet the staff has lamented in
a different way and I have a problem with that because it's
subject to whim, and it's not that they would do anything
that isn't reasonable or appropriate, but they could if they
wanted to or if the players change, the staff changed that
could happen as well.
The policy states that you get a minimum of a 10% credit.
Staff has applied that where you get a maximum of 10%
credit.
And Mr. Cohen, you touched on it earlier.
I think the reason they do that is it gives that
predictability in the revenue stream to limit it to 150%.
But that's just not right and that's not what their policy
says.
More important is what is the basis for the credit?
And I want to read to you very quickly what the credit
policy says.
And I want you to tell me if I can understand it because
it's taken me some time.
The credit for -- when you have the functioning on-site
treatment and attenuation system like a pond, the credit for
such parcels will be based upon the percentage of the city's
stormwater operation and maintenance OMN budget providing
for maintenance of stormwater pond but no location shall
receive less than 10%.
And if the OMN budget does not include funds for extension
of system upgrade.
What does that mean?
Has it been explained to you since they said this is the
policy council adopted? It's taken some time to understand
it.
It was drafted to apply to a service fee because what does
the city's OMN budget bond have to do with capital
improvements? It's just not applicable and it's not
reasonable to use that as the basis for the credit policy.
We need to address this in a fair way.
The timing is not critical.
It's not going to go on a tax bill till 2016.
I don't sub scribe to the theory that let's just do anything
so we can say let's do something.
I subscribe to the theory if you are not going to do it
right then don't do it at all.
We have time to do it right.
They have given you a timeline of March when they are asking
you, we'll fix all the other things later.
Let's give them incentives.
Let's fix it first, then we'll adopt the fee.
And that's all we are asking, to do it the right way.
12:27:49 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.
Next speaker.
12:27:58 >> What I have in my yard is a bucket.
12:28:14 >> State your full name sir.
12:28:15 >> Maybe you are acquainted with the term Keep It Simple.
My name is John Moll, and I'm speaking regarding the
properties I own, 16957, 16596 and 16600, and I would like
to ask for three minutes for each one because each is
independent.
Does anyone agree with that?
12:28:41 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Purchase one individual so you have three
minutes.
12:28:43 >> I have three minutes.
I'll try to make it fast.
You can see this, and the City of Tampa pays a fee.
So you can take a --
On-site is a problem?
I don't think so.
You can go out to cypress and it's called bay west.
They elevated everything underneath it.
There's a retention pond.
I have done the same thing with my house, although my house
was built in 1908.
That's what they did thereby.
They put it on elevation.
Retention underneath.
I have a letter from stormwater.
They sent out two engineers.
Could they see anything that would cement down the water?
They could not because they didn't want to see it.
I have maybe 70 collection units to collect.
That's not going into the street.
It's not going into the papers.
Putting these properties on-site, and these are areas
underneath the elevated houses.
That retains the water.
That stops it from going into the street or the pipes.
And then they sea it's not treated.
Well, what treatment do you need for rain water?
It's already distilled.
I can drink it.
I don't need to do anything more with it.
They also said there was no attenuation.
Well, I have attenuation.
I have plowed, I have the retention pond, I have no
impervious surface on the property whatsoever.
It sinks into the ground.
So I was looking for the 100% lump credit in the mediation.
And I don't understand that because the ESUs on my property,
ESus are 3.25.
On the document it only gets 1.
How is one 100% when I had 3.25.
If you improve this, my taxes are going to be 589.09.
And whether it's a tax or fee if you look on the bill they
sent me, they say tax.
So from your own document, you call it a tax.
So I'm opposed to increasing.
Thank you very much.
(Bell sounds).
12:31:19 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.
12:31:19 >> My name is Patricia MOLL.
I live at 4104 Lynn Avenue.
This morning you gave an award to Anna Peterson for Water
Wise, and I assume that you were looking at conservation.
And I wonder why the conservation people in the water
department are looking at her property, and then when the
stormwater people looked at it, would they give her the
mediation credit because she's using water wisely, and
reducing the stormwater runoff.
We live in a house that's 100 years old, and mother nature
for 100 years has been absorbing the water under the house
or in the yard.
When the engineers came out and said that we had runoff at
my curb is a granite curb, and if I had water runoff, every
time it rained, I would have a waterfall over that granite
curb.
I don't.
I urge you to have this fee and have a department come to
you with the fee and say that now you can charge me a fee
and not call it a tax because you don't want taxes to vote
on it, then I would say they are under the same umbrella as
rail.
And so why don't you just ask them to put a fee on for light
rail, because we certainly need light rail.
And if you have that power, then you have the power for
light rail, too, we don't need to tax it.
12:33:26 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Next speaker.
12:33:26 >> Good afternoon, Al Steenson, 4100 west Leila Avenue.
Tampa.
33616.
I am not here to oppose this because it's not an option.
We all know that.
And I'm going to quote from this letter I got that arrived
at my house two days after I had two and a half foot of
water in my driveway.
When you spend these numbers out, based on these
estimates -- and I am not talking about the mitigation,
things like -- just what's on this piece of paper.
If we take the $82 that we just assessed, at the end of 30
years, $33,666,000.
This thing here if it goes through, based on this letter, is
30 years, 506 million 332,000.
That's almost a billion dollars of our money, folks.
A billion dollars of it.
I think this administration, this council, there will be a
lot of other councils here in the 30 years -- and I won't be
here 30 years, I guarantee you that -- but I think this
council, future councils and future administrations have an
obligation, have an obligation, if you are going to get a
billion dollars of our money, that it needs to be completely
accountable to the public and the public should be able to
demand accountability for this, because a billion dollars is
a lot of money for the City of Tampa citizens.
As I said, doing nothing is not an option, but if you are
going to get this money, we need to be accountable, to be
accountable to the citizens, and know where this money is
going.
Thank you very much.
Have a good day.
12:35:34 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.
12:35:34 >> my name live at 10044, side.
Tampa.
I have listened for the last hour and a half to detailed
questions and answers, don't leave me completely
understanding what you are going to be asked or pass today.
So I guess one thing only would be that there's a lot more
questions that are still unanswered but I encourage you to
not vote for completion yet until your staff brings
everything back to your satisfaction.
My major concern living in north Tampa is that the greatest
needs are in South Tampa, and trying to put a city wade tax
misses the fact that this could actually be segregated into
north, south and east, which has different problems than in
the south.
That being said, I'm excited about the idea of trying to
look at something that's not just solely based but more
based on the value of your home rather than the total size
of your roof.
Finally, when I built my home in an established neighborhood
built mostly in the 50s, that we built in 2000, we were
total told we had to keep our stormwater on the property,
and that's the way we did.
I'm no engineer, but I haven't gotten any credits for doing
that.
And I certainly get the bill.
I don't mind paying a reasonable bill.
But I will certainly be wanting to find out what these
supposed changes will be about mitigation credits.
This is residential and all the discussions really focused
more on commercial, I understand.
And there's only so much time.
Thank you.
12:37:26 >> I live at 3400 west Lykes.
At this time I would like to side with what Gina Grimes
said, that there needs to be a lot more studies and more
answers before we do something like this to the community.
But one thing I am very, very concerned about, I live in
Ybor City.
A few minutes ago, take the paving off the properties and
get a credit.
Well, in Ybor City, they made us put paving before we could
use it for a parking lot.
You are not doing the same thing.
The other big issue is take Ybor City.
Over the last eight years, nine years, we spent like $18
million to solve our kilowatt problem in Ybor City.
We took that money out, our own money, from Ybor City and
put it back into storm sewers, and this last rain we really
didn't have a problem.
My other concern is that I am involved with a couple of
major schools here in town that are -- they are what do you
call it, the donations, they don't pay taxes today.
Yet under this assessment, these schools will be clobbered,
churches will be clobbered with this tax.
I mean, something has got to be studied a lot better than it
is and I think figures that you are relying on not current
today to Tampa and I think it has to be studied and to have
a better idea, and they haven't answered the questions that
you had, and it doesn't have to happen today.
I am asking that you put this thing on slow gear, check it
out, make sure we know what we are doing before we do it,
whatever studies need to be done, I think they have to be
done.
Thank you.
12:39:20 >> Andy Joe stag loan, representing the 08,000 members of
the Tampa association of realtors.
We supported this 7.8 million increase on the maintenance
because as Mr. Miranda said it doesn't matter how good a
system you have, if it's not maintained properly it's not
going to work.
The 251 million-dollar-plus -- and I say plus because of all
the fees and interest included on this -- would be the
largest tax increase in the history of the City of Tampa
that you would be responsible for voting on.
The budget advisory committee that I happen to sit on, one
thing about investing BP settlement money into the
stormwater projects.
That money came out of Daniels to the environment and should
go back into the damages, which would be stormwater, that
repairs damages to the environment.
We have not heard nothing about that from staff.
I believe that we should pay as we go.
But to build credibility with the taxpayers, they don't
trust you with $251 million, okay?
And they don't trust the government with $251 million.
When there's so many questions, the process itself, how it
started, the notice of this tax is on the back sheet of a
paper.
That's just the way you see the Spanish version.
Nobody even knew.
When we went to our members and we advised them of this
increase, they were outraged.
We could have filled up this whole room here today.
Instead we said, look, Mike and myself will come down here,
present our case, report back to them on staff's comments,
City Council's comments and City Council votes.
Again I am not going to repeat some of the things that were
said, but the nonprofits -- and you all understand what's
happened with some of these nonprofits.
It would just throw their budget totally out of whack.
I'm not for -- if we have problems, in specific areas, let's
get them corrected, let's pay as we go, and not have other
areas subsidized areas that have the most problems.
Again, thank you very much.
(Bell sounds).
12:41:58 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right, anyone else from the public that
has not spoken wish to speak at this time?
Okay.
Staff, are there any additional comments?
All right.
Need a motion to close the public hearing.
12:42:11 >> So moved.
12:42:13 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion from Mrs. Montelione, seconded by
Mrs. Capin.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
All right.
Council, what's your pleasure?
Any comments from council?
Or a motion?
12:42:26 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I noticed that Mr. Alana and Mr. Ho
joined us during this conversation because they had a vested
interest in some of this discussion and how it was going.
I had a real education from the two of them, so thank you
very much, over the years.
And I pulled from my file something that I was provided, I
think, by one of them, and it's the history of stormwater
management in Tampa.
Prayer to 1972 there was no stormwater regulations in the
city.
We have a lot of catching up to do.
So some of the people who spoke who own property built
before 1972 there were no requirements for anything.
1972, Congress passes the clean water act.
The federal government told us to.
1973, and fill in the blanks on the acronym, was abolished
and turned over to the City of Tampa.
1982, department of public works was reorganized, to have
separate funding, with stormwater in preparation for a fee.
The attempt was to create a stormwater fee failed in 1982.
SWFWMD ERP was created, environmental regulations in 1984.
1988, stormwater ordinance was adopted with the new
technical standard.
1996, stormwater technical standards were modified N.2003
stormwater utility was adopted in Tampa.
And then we went on to have further discussion and changes.
We have standards that are issued by the federal government,
by the state, and we have to meet those standard.
And if we don't meet those standards, then we have to work
to correct those deficiencies.
We can't continue to ignore this problem.
And going back all the way in history, there has been a
whole lot of change in what we have been doing over the
years.
12:44:42 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I hate to interrupt you, but I need 15 more
minutes.
I thought you were going to make a motion.
12:44:47 >> So moved.
12:44:49 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second -- whoa, whoa.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Okay.
Got 15 more minutes.
12:44:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
So with that, I will make a motion, because I think that
it's important that we do this, and we had a lot of
discussion.
I was going back to my files.
I think the first time this came up before this body was two
years ago.
So we have had a lot of discussion.
Is it perfect?
No.
Is it ever going to be perfect?
Probably not.
We could sit here for another two years and talk about it
and it still won't be perfect.
But we have the opportunity.
Mr. Suarez brought up the mitigation program needs,
modification, it needs a lot of work.
I agree with you, harvesting is very important of rain.
I do it at my house.
I even installed --
I think there's a lot of work that we can do with mitigation
credits but I think we need to be do something and we need
to act now before we spend another two years talking about
this.
And as you notify won't be here in two years.
So I want to do this while I have the opportunity, because I
think it's the right thing to do.
So I am looking for the actions on here that were provided.
12:46:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
If I may.
I think the first step would be to move the resolution
S.that the first step?
That would be the first motion.
12:46:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Final resolution for assessment so I
would move the resolution as provided by staff.
12:46:20 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Do I have a second?
12:46:21 >>HARRY COHEN:
Second.
12:46:22 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Got a motion.
Discussion.
12:46:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Chairman, I want to vote for
something that's equitable, that's correct.
And I can give the history than on a lot of things we didn't
have prior to 1972.
A lot.
And every aspect of health, welfare, to anything in the
world.
Has it changed?
I would certainly vote for something I could fix P.I can't
fix this.
I can't fix this with 251 million because it's dependent on
the amount of rainfall that falls.
Nowhere in the world did administration bring evidence to
this body that this would be fixed in spending this money.
And it's not 251 million, it's right at half a billion
dollars on this one alone, with the interest and the taxes
that we have to pay.
And it's no one from Mr. Baird on down came here and said
this will fix this problem 100%.
They didn't even say it would fix it 10%.
They even say zero percent.
It just we want to spend it on stormwater.
The presentation that was made does not fix the problem,
because they can't fix this problem.
The only way you can fix this problem is by lowering the
bay.
And I can't do that.
I'm serious when I say that.
I can't fix this problem.
I wish I could tell you that I can.
But I'm not God and I can't fix this.
I can improve it somewhat, but I can't fix it.
So therefore I can't vote to move the resolution even though
I voted for everything that you can think of.
But I can't fix this.
So therefore I will not be supporting the resolution.
12:48:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Mr. Shelby, do I need to read the
resolution?
12:48:15 >>FRANK REDDICK:
No, you made the motion.
12:48:19 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any further comment?
12:48:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair.
Mr. Miranda is right.
We can't fix it with this.
We can't fix it with 500 million, a billion dollars.
There's no doubt about that.
So I think that if we went with that logic we probably
shouldn't try to fix any other problem.
I mean, the idea is that we are looking at stormwater
improvement.
When we are looking at trying to make sure that this city is
going to be able to be competitive with every other city in
the country.
We can't keep saying, well, we are not going to put any
money into this piece of infrastructure because of all these
other issues.
Because a lot of people that have been talking about it --
and I think that the problem that we have with staff is that
we have haven't really gotten to the point of what it means
in terms of mitigation credit.
We have to have a better way of assigning how people can get
credit, because as an example, Mr. MOLL came up, and it's a
little different because the mitigation credits are
different when it comes to a private home than it is to
commercial property.
Here is a guy that's trying to make sure that he does not
put more stormwater into the system.
How do we solve that problem?
We have to -- we.
Come um with a solution to that and I think that's something
we should zero in on because that's something we are not
doing a good enough job on.
We mitigate more of our stormwater runoff, we are going to
have less of a burden on our stormwater system which means I
going to City of to be spend less in order to improve the
stormwater system.
And I think staff unfortunately has not come up with a more
robust way of figuring out how we communicate that to the
public.
And that's really the one failure that I have seen.
We talked a lot about what does it mean in terms of
fairness, trying to put together a hardship program.
It is not going to please everyone.
It's note going to accept everyone.
But if we said we are going to increase our millage, which
some people have suggested in the past, we are going to come
back to essentially the same amount of money.
The reason why page 3 of the stormwater improvement program
presentation was given to us was to give us contained of an
idea of what it would be if we raise the millage.
I think the millage will still have -- have an effect on our
economy.
And as opposed to an assessment.
Some people may not think so but I'll tell you when you are
trying to sell in terms of value or you are trying to
improve things because of value, the cost associated with an
additional .6 mill is going to have a real effect in terms
of what we do in terms of our economy.
Now, I do believe that -- and I think there was some suggest
by other people in terms of making us change the way that we
do things so that one section of the city pays based on
whatever the specifics are.
And can I ask a question of Mr. Shelby and staff even though
we have closed the meeting?
12:51:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I think you can.
12:51:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I promise add member of the public I would
ask this question.
Could we put together an assessment specific to a
geographical part of the city in order to pay for their own
stormwater, meaning that they would be taxed only for
stormwater, and can we do this legally and create like a
stormwater assessment district?
Is that possible?
12:51:41 >>JAN MCLEAN:
City attorney's office.
Yes.
The short answer is yes.
And the reason, let me explain.
We have an improvement area which includes various drainage
basins.
So if I am understanding it, you would identify the drainage
stations because it has to be based on stormwater purpose,
and we could identify that drainage basin, and that would be
its own improvement area as opposed to this drainage basin.
So individually we could do in the that manner.
12:52:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Would we have to tax everyone that's in that
district, and how it's taxed, the same contained of
assessment that you are proposing for city-wide?
12:52:20 >> We don't tax them.
This is a user fee.
12:52:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I'm sorry.
I mixed and matched them in that sentence.
I apologize.
The assessment if we did it on a basis -- basin basis.
If some of the other places in north Tampa and we said we
want to have a stormwater improvement assessment for that
particular basin in the geographic line that we have, what
is our legal defense doing something like that versus doing
something in another part of the city?
12:52:52 >> It will be similar to what you are doing here but on a
smaller scale.
Would you identify what the issues are, what your capital
improvement needs are, what their costs are, and you would
identify what assessment was needed, and you would impose
that assessment on that drainage basin, for example, to
support that project in that area.
12:53:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So there is no legal problem with doing
something like that and we can pass a resolution in order to
break up this improvement assessment for that purpose or no?
12:53:22 >> Not today.
12:53:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
In a, not today, I'm just saying in terms of
doing a separation of it we could?
12:53:28 >>JAN MCLEAN:
You could have gone in that direction.
But what we identified the improvement area as the central
and lower basins which include everything south of Fowler.
We identified the capital improvement plan, and we are
proposing that we move forward in that manner.
12:53:44 >> In terms of equitability, I guess is the right word, in
terms of equitability, how would we be able to assess it?
Would we be doing the same assessment as we are doing now?
My point is, would you change it based only on the total
number of dollars that we estimate would be the projects in
that area versus doing it on some other basis?
12:54:08 >>JAN MCLEAN:
You would still be using your underlying
methodology of your assessment but you would be doing it at
a different geographic area, of that budget.
12:54:20 >> So we could accept it up not in separate geographic areas
but the methodology is going to be the same, is what you are
saying?
12:54:28 >> >>JAN MCLEAN:
Yes.
12:54:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That's what I wanted to get at because the
idea is somehow it's going to magically change what we are
able to do city wade.
The amount of money that we are going to spend and the
ount of money we'll raise, and Mr. Miranda is right, it's
not just $251 million, it's plus the amount of money that's
administrative plus the amount of money we have to pay back.
There's no doubt about that.
It's still not going to change fountain bee do it on a
geographic area because the way we still assess is going to
be exactly the same way we assess them now, is that correct?
12:55:03 >>JAN MCLEAN:
Yes.
Once you change the underlying methodology which is my
recommendation, it would still be based on methodologies
that we are using now.
12:55:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
12:55:11 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
We have five minutes.
12:55:15 >> Move an additional 15, sir.
We still have a lot of issues to get through.
12:55:26 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Well, we are on a motion now.
And we just ended up having to put this aside and we'll come
back.
12:55:35 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I propose we take the Super Bowl up
before we break.
12:55:43 >>FRANK REDDICK:
We are going to take a break.
Any other comments?
All right.
Got a motion on the floor from Mrs. Montelione.
Seconded by Mr. Cohen.
12:55:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I do have a comment.
I want to say that, you know, breaking it up into the
drainage basins, I don't think would be much different than
what we have before us, because the drainage basins, the two
of them cover most of the city.
It would be a very small sliver of people that would not be
affected.
And the way I look at it is I live in one of those areas of
the city that would not be in one of those drainage basins.
I certainly travel to one of those drainage basin areas.
I shop.
My shopping is not limited to the few streets around my
house.
So all of the citizens of Tampa use our roadways, and have
difficulty getting to work as a lot of people who live
downtown, work in other parts of the city, a lot of people
who work and live in other parts of the city work downtown.
So I just want to move the resolution, and we'll address it
in the second motion, the mitigation issue.
12:56:54 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion from Mrs. Montelione.
Seconded by Mr. Cohen.
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
12:57:00 >>THE CLERK:
[Off microphone.]
12:57:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'll make the second motion in order to
address the mitigation issues that this issue is not going
away.
We still have mitigation, but it's because there are still
people who are paying -- are getting mitigation credit now,
people who would need to get mitigation credits who aren't
under the mitigation system now, so I am going to go ahead
and move that we direct staff to return with amendments to
chapter 121, mitigation policy.
12:57:44 >>HARRY COHEN:
Second.
What is the date?
12:57:51 >>JAN MCLEAN:
Now my request was to direct staff for the
procedural clarifications for the mitigation credit policy,
and we had requested that we return in March for first
reading of that revised ordinance.
12:58:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
March 3rd are? March 3rd at
10:30 a.m.?
Or would that be 9 a.m. staff reports?
12:58:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Under staff reports?
First reading under staff reports?
12:58:19 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
It would come back for first reading,
I'm sorry.
Okay.
12:58:27 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I am going to second it for discussion.
12:58:31 >>FRANK REDDICK:
You need to clarify.
12:58:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I am going to discuss it then.
What you saw was not a change in the process that we have
been presented.
It is a clarification of exactly that process.
12:58:46 >> >>JAN MCLEAN:
Right.
Yes, it would be as I suggested, the clarification of the
process to apply for the mitigation credit in our ordinance.
It's been suggested by members of the public that it's
unclear as to when they can apply, what they need to
provide, and those are the elements of the ordinance that we
were asking for direction to clarify.
12:59:17 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
10%, 100%, depending.
12:59:20 >> >>JAN MCLEAN:
Yes.
12:59:22 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have a motion from Mrs. Montelione.
Seconded by Mr. Cohen.
Any further discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion say yay.
Opposed?
12:59:29 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Aye.
12:59:33 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Okay.
All right.
The original motion as I said before, that motion was 4-3
against, correct?
The resolution?
I don't think I stated.
That I didn't hear it stated.
All right.
I wanted to make sure the public understood.
All right.
Anything else that we need to bring forward?
Staff, anything else to bring before us at this time?
All right.
We are going to stand in recess till 2:15.
(City Council in recess.)
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.
TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Afternoon session
2:15 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.
02:21:03 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Okay.
[Sounding gavel]
We are going to call this meeting back to order.
Roll call.
02:21:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.
02:21:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
02:21:19 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Present.
02:21:21 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
02:21:22 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Here.
02:21:25 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.
All right. Is anyone here from staff here for item 75?
02:21:32 >> [Off microphone] The document in chapter 4, proposed
brownfield area designation, public review at the city
clerk's office.
The public notice has been satisfied and recommends that
City Council approve the designation following the second
public hearing.
02:22:40 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions from council?
02:22:42 >> Move the resolution.
02:22:45 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Anyone from the public wishing to speak on
item number 75?
02:22:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to close.
02:22:50 >> Second.
02:22:51 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have a motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
All right.
A motion on the floor?
02:22:57 >> Move number 75.
02:22:59 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Seconded by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of the resolution say aye.
Opposed?
Okay.
Thank you.
Mrs. Montelione, you asked to pull number 51.
02:23:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And number 39.
Mr. Rogero and Mr. Higgins are both here.
I apologize for the late or early hour that I pulled this
and thank you for accommodating the request.
You know, I had spoken to Mr. Higgins many times.
I'm a great fan of his work and I think a marvelous job with
the minimal amount of staff he has and they have been able
to accomplish great things, and we have been happy enough to
have the Super Bowl here a few times but I think we have a
history, and learned from having these big events.
So great exposure for the city, no doubt.
It would be a wonderful thing to have.
But I do have concerns about the economics of it, because
even just this morning we were discussing how the city
spends its money and what the city spends its money on.
And when we have a proposition such as this before us, where
we are putting in a bid for the Super Bowl, either 19 or
20 -- 2019-2020, it's an enormous expense.
And some of the things that I have been reading from some
economists who have opined that it doesn't bring the revenue
that is often stated.
And this is just written in January of this year, 2015.
And in Glendale, Arizona, there was public criticism from
the mayor, I believe, of Glendale, about the amount of money
it spent in all the services that the city has to provide
and what the economic benefit is.
So a couple of years back I asked for staff when they put
agenda items forward on their cover page to put the fiscal
impact, and the fiscal impact on this particular item says
there is none, and it says as well, where there's a fiscal
impact statement, it's 10-A, then under projected costs, it
has nothing.
So I didn't intend for the resolution to pass.
That may be true.
But when I made the motion a couple years ago to have the
fiscal impact on the cover page the intent would know when
we were voting on something what it was going to cost us.
Even if we don't have a specific number, so maybe the first
would be no, but the summary could make a statement as to in
the past we spent this, we realized a benefit revenue of
this, and this is the suggested fiscal impact that we would
have.
So that's why I wanted to ask those questions this morning,
since we do have been history and I don't have to rely on
these experiences of Arizona what the cost was the last time
we hosted a Super Bowl, you know.
02:26:39 >> I believe it was just under a million dollars.
02:26:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So it cost the city just under a million
dollars for police, fire rescue, maintenance, clean-up,
celebrations?
02:26:55 >> Yes, ma'am.
If I'm not mistaken that was perceived revenue primarily I
think is parking.
Between what we gained and what we spent, I think the
official tally for the City of Tampa expenses was just under
a million.
02:27:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And economists debate this, what the
economic impact is to the city.
It says here the NFL, Super Bowl worth 500 million in
economic impact to the city but many economists debunked
those numbers and say the impact is not even half that
ount.
Even at 250 million, I think it's still a pretty decent
return, if the expenses are a million dollar, but I really
want to see what we are asked to do here and what the fiscal
impact is.
02:27:50 >> >>Dennis Rogero:
If I can explain what council is asked
to do with this item.
This is, correct me if I am wrong, simply a first step, the
administration and council has to request that the Super
Bowl coming those two years you reference, 2019 and 2020, it
will be about a six month process.
But if we don't get this done, we won't -- the NFL won't
entertain us participating in the rest of the process in
bringing the Super Bowl here.
Our final bid package is due in April.
The presentation to the NFL is in May.
Between now and that time, we will have opportunity to come
before council and share with you our anticipated amounts of
expenditure, and presumably economic impact.
I think presumably because you can ask ten economists this
and ask economists that but there is debate about what the
economic benefit is.
But we over the course of the next six months can give
council a very well educated guess of what the anticipated
expenditures will be.
02:29:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
So if the final bid is due in April, that what would be a
good time for you to come back?
02:29:09 >> Can I get back to you on that?
Because the request we have before you models very, very
closely the previous request in 2005 and 2011.
I can go back and look at the times after that, that we came
before council, with specific information.
I can give you a better understanding.
02:29:30 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I don't want this to get lost in the
shuffle.
So why don't we set it for May 17th?
And then if May 17th is not sufficient -- I'm sorry,
March 17th.
02:29:43 >> I was going to say.
02:29:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
March 17th.
02:29:45 >> Sounds good.
And of course we will bring it to your attention if we need
to come to you or if there are steps prior to that that
would require your approval.
02:29:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
I kind of had a feeling that would be the answer.
What I really wanted to do was make sure that we have it as
a discussion item before we make a real commitment to
approving this.
And to make sure that in the future that in that fiscal
impact statement something is written there, because
obviously this is going to have an impact.
So I motion for a staff report March 17th at 9 a.m.
regarding the fiscal impact to the city in relation to the
bid being put forth for Super Bowl 2019 and 2020.
02:30:43 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione.
Second by Mr. Miranda.
Further discussion on the snows all in favor say aye.
Opposed?
Thank you very much.
02:30:49 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
Thank you so much for spending the day with us.
It wasn't expected.
02:31:00 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Item 51.
Staff.
02:31:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you for joining us again, Mrs.
Duncan.
02:31:13 >>JEAN DUNCAN:
Transportation and stormwater services.
You asked to have a little more discussion about item 61
which is a work order for a consulting professional services
with American engineering to do traffic modeling work.
This is related to the express project currently in
development. This models what we call the main line which
is the interstate system itself, and they do minimum
modeling in terms of the side streets, and depending on the
changes that are made to the ramp, the locations of the
ramp, the configuration, that can translate to circulation
changes on the side streets.
So this traffic modeling effort will be extending from
downtown, west of downtown, all the way to the Westshore
area, to take a look at the circulation impact of the
project, to identify congestion issues that may come from
that, identify possible infrastructure needs that we would
have as a result, prioritize those project locations and
identify what funding would need to be put in place to make
roadway changes with the project.
02:32:42 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So American engineering, from what I
remember, is the same company as I remember who was doing
under FDOT.
They are an FDOT contractor?
02:32:56 >> Yes.
02:32:57 >> Are we contracting directly with American or with FDOT
who turn N turn contracts with American?
02:33:03 >> We are contracting directly with American, not through
the DOT.
02:33:07 >> Is there a reason that we are using the same contractor
and not getting a different set of eyes?
02:33:11 >> Yes.
We are using the same contractor because we can have
efficiency savings because they have the model that's being
created for the TBX work.
So to be able to utilize that same information instead of
having someone else recreate that information, we can get
the work that we need to have done a lot more efficiently
and a lot more quickly, and they have --
02:33:34 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I understand that but I am just thinking
it's public information, so couldn't they just request
another contractor, just request that information from FDOT
be given the work product and, you know, drop it into their
model?
02:33:48 >> They can do that, but there is a learning curve to
transfer all of that work to another consultant, and then we
are probably in a situation where if there are changes, some
areas, alternatives, being developed by the department, we
want to in sync with that do a modeling scenario on the city
side that would reflect those alternatives that the
department is looking at.
So we felt that it was -- we have subject matter expert in
the department using providing the same work for us, and
again we have that timeline efficiency and dollar efficiency
by using the same consultant.
02:34:30 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I guess my concern is that it is the
same consultant.
The information is transferable, and I understand about
learning curves, but, you know, there is a different
interest, whose interest is it serving?
Is it serving FDOT's interest or serving the City of Tampa's
interest?
So that's one of the concerns I have.
The other question I have is that we are doing this on
roadways within the Westshore West Tampa area.
Well, I don't have to tell you all the conversation that's
been had around TBS and most of the conversations thus far
has been surrounding the Tampa Heights, Seminole Heights
impact downtown with the interchange and all of those
neighborhoods.
So are we doing the same thing, an outside study with an
engineering company to look at the impact to those streets?
02:35:24 >>JEAN DUNCAN:
Yes, we already have a work order which is
what we are calling the northern part of our downtown model,
using American engineering, for the downtown, northern
downtown part of our city for the same purpose.
So the Tampa Heights issues that we have been hearing about,
the circulation impact from this project, and we already
have that contract in place.
So this is just extending that same work all the way over to
the Westshore area.
We have had the same input from West Tampa folks, the
Westshore Alliance, wanting to be able to have a circulation
model, so this is the second part of that modeling.
02:36:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
The third leg of that is going out to my
area of Fowler Avenue.
So is there also going to be an impact study for north of
MLK portion of this project?
02:36:17 >>JEAN DUNCAN:
Yes.
When that piece is ready to go we'll have that as well.
02:36:20 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Those are my questions.
02:36:22 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right, thank you.
We go to item number 7.
Request to continue from the legal department.
Item number 7.
02:36:44 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.
We had a memo asking to have this outside of the litigation
that's still pending and the questions that were asked.
02:36:54 >> Motion to continue?
02:36:55 >>HARRY COHEN:
[Off microphone] Move to continue to
February 18th, staff reports at 9 a.m.
02:37:07 >> Second.
(Motion carried).
02:37:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I distributed this morning the draft
resolution for council's consideration, if council wishes to
have it taken up today, it can. If council wishes to have
the time to review it, I would ask it be put onto the next
regular meeting under the consent docket.
02:37:29 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I think it would probably be appropriate to
put it onto the next agenda docket since we just got it this
morning.
02:37:36 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Wasn't that part of the backup material?
02:37:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
No, that was the conversation we had.
02:37:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay, thank you.
02:37:46 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
02:37:52 >>FRANK REDDICK:
A motion from Mr. Cohen.
Seconded by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
Item number 9.
02:37:58 >> Wastewater department here to answer any questions you
have on the wastewater contract.
02:38:16 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Questions from council are? Mirrored
Miranda move the resolution.
02:38:20 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Seconded by Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
Thank you, sir.
Item 10.
Ordinance for first reading consideration.
02:38:34 >> You need a report on it?
Otherwise first reading and second reading it will pass at
public hearing.
02:38:45 >>JULIA MANDELL:
City attorney.
I don't know if you have people to speak on it.
This is being presented to you for first reading as this
particular ordinance has been found unconstitutional and
remaining on the books.
Thank you.
02:39:04 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mrs. Montelione, read the ordinance.
02:39:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Certainly, sir.
I move an ordinance of the city -- it's really short -- an
ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida repealing Tampa code
section 14-26 juvenile curfew ordinance providing an
effective date.
02:39:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Second.
02:39:25 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Got a motion by Mrs. Montelione, seconded
by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
Okay.
02:39:29 >>THE CLERK:
Second reading and adoption of this ordinance
will be on December 3rd, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.
02:39:38 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Item number 11.
02:39:39 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.
Staff requests this be put on the annual update to your
comprehensive plan, capital improvements element reflecting
various and sundry other five-year work program.
02:39:59 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Questions from council?
02:40:01 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
An ordinance being presented for first
reading consideration.
An ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan, capital
improvements element, by updating the schedule of projects
for fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2020 by updating
the Florida Department of Transportation five year work
program for fiscal year 20616 through fiscal year 2020, by
updating the Hillsborough County public schools facility
five year work program for fiscal year 2014 through fiscal
year 2018 providing for repeal of all ordinances in
conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective
date.
02:40:33 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have a motion by Mr. Maniscalco, seconded
by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
02:40:38 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carries with Capin being absent.
Second reading and adoption will be on December 3rd,
2015 at 9:30 a.m.
02:40:48 >>FRANK REDDICK:
We go to committee reports.
Public safety committee.
02:40:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move items 12 through 19.
02:40:53 >> Second.
02:40:55 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor?
Opposed?
Okay.
Mr. Maniscalco.
02:41:03 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I move items 20 through 28.
02:41:08 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Seconded by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
Public Works Committee, Mr. Suarez.
02:41:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I move items 29 through 36.
02:41:19 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Suarez.
Seconded by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
Finance Committee.
Mr. Cohen.
02:41:25 >>HARRY COHEN:
I move items 37 through 40.
02:41:30 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have a motion from Mr. Cohen.
Second by Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
Building zoning preservation committee, Mrs. Montelione.
02:41:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Move 47 through 58.
02:41:44 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mrs. Montelione, second by Mr.
Suarez.
All in favor say aye.
Those opposed?
Okay.
Transportation committee, Mr. Miranda isn't here.
Mr. Cohen.
02:41:58 >>HARRY COHEN:
I move the transportation committee item 59
through 63.
02:42:04 >> Second.
02:42:07 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have a motion by Mr. Coven.
Seconded by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
Okay.
We already opened the public hearings 69 through, I think,
75.
02:42:19 >>HARRY COHEN:
I move item numbers 64 through 69, all set
for review hearings at various different dates.
02:42:38 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Cohen, seconded by Mr.
Suarez.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
Okay.
Motion carried.
All right.
Item 70.
02:42:46 >>JULIA MANDELL:
City attorney.
This is second reading of the ordinance that would create
the ordinances for citizens review board for the Tampa
Police Department.
I'm available for any questions.
Thank you.
02:43:05 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions by council?
Mr. Cohen.
Anyone in the public wish to speak on item number 70?
02:43:16 >> Don Rhodes, and I'm here to speak on item number 70.
It appears to me from reading the draft that I have read,
assuming that what was appended to this item number on City
Council's agenda that there are some important materials
here.
Whereas, it is the intent of the City Council of the City of
Tampa to create by ordinance among other things a
relationship of mutual trust and respect between the Tampa
Police Department and the people it serves, dot dot dot.
It indicates a great concern for the police officers, but
there's no place in this where it mentions specifically the
U.S. Constitution nor the state Constitution.
It only mentions the state Constitution as a reference to
home rule.
Other than that, even though there's two Constitutions in
play, in a subject matter, that's what the review board is
about, is whether the citizenry, police, and the police
officers in fact respect Constitutional law.
I don't mean to just stick it in the whereas clause, and I
know that there are a couple that do not believe in
Constitutional law for citizens that protest, occupy, these
kind of things.
But remember many of the confrontations that emerge between
police officers and their citizenry emerge in the context of
a separate free speech protest.
But a lawyer of your tribunal -- ought to be really clearly
concerned.
I think the first law of the legislation.
I can't think of a piece --
(Bell sounds)
Of speech, assembly legislation that you have taken up in
the last five years that you weren't to some degree hostile
to individual rights in favor of police rights.
Whether you pass this in incomplete condition or you pass
another one, it's going to say an awful lot about how
serious you were when you drafted this.
(Bell sounds).
02:46:35 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.
Anyone else wishing to speak on item number 7? -- 70?
Seeing none.
02:46:41 >> Move to close.
02:46:43 >> Second.
02:46:45 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Cohen.
Seconded by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
Mr. Cohen?
02:46:50 >>HARRY COHEN:
I move an ordinance being presented for
second reading and adoption, an ordinance of the city of
Tampa, Florida revising chapter 18 City of Tampa code of
ordinances creating section 18-8, citizen review board for
the Tampa Police Department, repealing all ordinances or
parts of ordinances in conflict therewith, providing for
severability, providing.
02:47:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Second.
02:47:13 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Cohen.
Second by Mr. Miranda.
Please record your vote.
02:47:16 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Mr. Reddick voting no.
02:47:30 >> item number 71.
Anyone here to speak on item number 71?
02:47:36 >> Move to close.
02:47:39 >> Second 134 motion by Mr. Cohen.
Second by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
Okay.
02:47:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I present an ordinance for second reading
and adoption, an ordinance approving historic preservation
property tax application relative to the restoration,
renovation or rehabilitation of certain property owned by
510 Franklin LLC located at 510 North Franklin Street Tampa,
Florida based upon certain findings providing for notice to
the property appraiser of Hillsborough County, providing for
severability, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
conflict, providing an effective date.
02:48:19 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Suarez.
Second by Mr. Miranda.
Please record your vote.
02:48:22 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Capin being absent at
vote.
02:48:42 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
72 and 73, anyone wishing to speak on those two items,
please stand and be sworn in, if you are going to speak on
72 or 73, please stand and be sworn in.
Item number 72.
02:49:03 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Land Development Coordination.
Item number 72 in your agenda is REZ 14-74, a rezoning
request for the property at 3405 west Hawthorne road,
certified site plan has been filed.
02:49:28 >>MARK BENTLEY:
210 North Franklin Street.
I represent the petitioner.
I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.
02:49:37 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions from council?
Anyone in the audience wish to speak on item number 72?
02:49:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to close.
02:49:44 >> Second.
02:49:45 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Seconded by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
All right.
Mrs. Capin, 72.
02:49:53 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
An ordinance rezoning property in the
general vicinity of 3405 west Hawthorne road in the city of
Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section 1 from
zoning district classifications RS-60 residential
single-family to PD planned development, residential,
single-family, detached, providing an effective date.
02:50:09 >> Second.
02:50:11 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion from Mrs. Capin.
Seconded by Mr. Miranda.
Please record your vote.
02:50:19 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
02:50:23 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Item number 73.
02:50:26 >>BARBARA LYNCH:
Land Development Coordination.
This is vacating, second reading for a portion of 11th
Avenue.
The applicant was here earlier.
He had to have go.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
02:50:39 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions from council?
Anyone wishing to speak on item 73?
02:50:43 >> Move to close.
02:50:44 >> Second.
02:50:45 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
02:50:54 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you very much.
Move item 73, ordinance presented for second reading, an
ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing, and abandoning a
portion of right-of-way known as 11th Avenue lying south
of interstate 4 north of 10th Avenue east of 36th
street and west of railroad right-of-way described in
section here of subject to certain easement reservations
covenants conditions and restrictions more particularly set
forth herein providing an effective date.
02:51:26 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Seconded by Mr. Suarez.
Please record your vote.
02:51:29 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
02:51:31 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Anyone wishing to speak on item 76, 77, 78?
If you have not been sworn, please stand and be sworn.
(Oath administered by Clerk).
Okay, item 76.
02:51:56 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Land Development Coordination.
Item number 76 in your agenda is AB 2-15-19.
It's on a special use 2 for large venue, property at 707 and
711 North Franklin Street.
The applicant is present.
He requested a continuance to March 24th, 2016.
02:52:15 >>MARK BENTLEY:
I represent the Tampa Theatre.
We have a pending application and the theater has
incorporated an additional area into their wet zoned area,
and essentially we have to amend the petition.
And we will renotice.
So we are requesting January 21st if that's available.
02:52:40 >>FRANK REDDICK:
It says here March 24th.
02:52:42 >>MARK BENTLEY:
I know.
Subsequent to the letter I spoke with Mrs. Marshall.
02:52:48 >>HARRY COHEN:
During the day?
02:52:55 >>MARK BENTLEY:
Yes, sir.
02:52:57 >>FRANK REDDICK:
What time?
January 21st, 10:30.
02:53:02 >>MARK BENTLEY:
That's great, thank you.
02:53:05 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Anyone from the public wishing to speak on
item number 76?
02:53:08 >>HARRY COHEN:
Move to continue to January 21 at 10:30 a.m.
02:53:14 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have a motion from Mr. Cohen.
Seconded by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
Okay.
Item number 77.
02:53:21 >>BARBARA LYNCH:
Land Development Coordination.
Item 77 is vacating 16-01, Housing Authority of the City of
Tampa to vacate a portion of Hank Ballard street.
You can see the map on the overhead.
Right now the ownership is -- the portion that they want is
vacated in yellow between Cass and Harrison.
We have about 50 feet of right-of-way remaining in the
sidewalk area, and I have pictures.
It doesn't really show a lot because it's unimproved.
It's just a grassy area.
This is the petitioner's property looking west from Hank
Ballard street, and the same area looking south on Harrison
street.
Staff has no objections.
And there is no ...
Questions by council?
02:54:34 >> David Simms, 401 East Jackson Street, suite 2200.
Just to explain why we are doing this.
When we platted the Encore development, there was a 70-foot.
We ran into the TECO property to the south and the original
plat came down a straight line to where we abutted TECO.
Now we constructed a road through TECO, in the process of
platting that, and within the project, southbound.
This is an area that immediately abuts.
We are looking to vacate that to the development of lot 10.
Glad to answer any questions.
02:55:39 >> questions by council?
Anyone in the public wish.
02:55:44 >> Move to close.
02:55:45 >> Second.
02:55:46 >> Motion to close by Mrs. Montelione.
Seconded by Mr. Miranda.
All right.
Mrs. Montelione.
02:55:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay, number 77.
I move an ordinance being presented for first reading
consideration, an ordinance vacating, closing,
discontinuing, abandoning a portion of the right-of-way
known as Hank ballard street located at the southwest corner
of Hank ballard street the same being more fully described
in section 1 hereof providing an effective date.
02:56:16 >> Second.
02:56:18 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Got a motion from Mrs. Montelione.
Seconded by Mr. Suarez.
Any discussion on the motion?
All those in favor say aye.
Opposed?
02:56:25 >>THE CLERK:
Second reading and adoption will be on
December 3rd, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.
02:56:34 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Item 78.
02:56:35 >>BARBARA LYNCH:
Land Development Coordination.
Item 78 is Peyton LLC to vacate an unimproved alley.
I have a map for the overhead.
It's north of Broadway and from 67th to 68th street.
The applicant owns the parcel on each side of the alley on
that effort end.
And the alley to be vacated is shown in yellow.
The alleyway is looking west from 68th street, and then
the alley looking east from 67th street.
This is the property looking west from 68th street and
the property again looking at the southeast corner of
Broadway.
This is the abutting owner on Broadway on the east side.
And the other owner on the back of the alley on the east
side.
Staff has no objection to this request.
02:57:45 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Questions from council?
Anyone in the public wish to speak on item number 78?
02:57:49 >> I'm the applicant.
My address is 216 south bradford Avenue in Tampa, Florida.
33601.
We are just requesting that the alley be vacated so that we
can make the two properties one parcel.
02:58:12 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions from council?
Okay.
Anything else you want to say?
02:58:20 >> No.
Not unless you have any questions.
02:58:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Mr. Chairman, just for the purposes of the
record so if anybody is reading a transcript, it's important
that you ask --
02:58:33 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right, anyone from the public wishing
to speak on item number 78 -- well, I did.
That's why he came up.
Yeah.
Anyone from the public wish to speak on item number 78?
All right.
Motion by Mr. Suarez.
Second by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
Mr. Maniscalco.
02:58:59 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I have an ordinance being presented for
first reading consideration, an ordinance vacating, closing,
discontinuing, and abandoning an alleyway lying north of
Broadway Avenue east of 67th street and west of the
68th street in Hellekes subdivision, a subdivision in
the city of Tampa, Florida Hillsborough County Florida the
same being more fully described in section 1 hereof
providing an effective date.
02:59:20 >> Motion by Mr. Maniscalco.
Seconded by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
02:59:27 >>THE CLERK:
Second reading and adoption will be held
December 3rd, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.
02:59:33 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Item number 79.
Cannot be heard.
02:59:40 >> Item 79 should have been removed from the agenda so move
to remove item 79.
02:59:44 >>THE CLERK:
We do have a notification on here.
02:59:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm looking at the draft agenda.
Sorry.
02:59:56 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Need a motion to reschedule.
02:59:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Move to reschedule to January 21 at
10:30 a.m.
03:00:03 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have a motion.
03:00:06 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
2016.
03:00:09 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mrs. Montelione, seconded by Mr.
Cohen.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
Okay.
All right.
Information reports.
Mr. Miranda.
03:00:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I would like to have a commendation done
for Mr. Ron Rotella who re tires from the Westshore
Alliance, has done an outstanding job for many years, and to
be determined at a later date when I get ahold of him.
03:00:32 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion from Mr. Miranda.
Seconded by Ms. Montelione.
All in favor say yay.
Opposed?
Okay.
Anything else?
03:00:41 >> That's it.
03:00:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Happy Thanksgiving next week.
We will be gone.
03:00:50 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.
We'll see you in December.
03:01:07 >>HARRY COHEN:
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
And happy Thanksgiving to everyone watching on television
and to everybody who is traveling, have a safe trip and
return safely.
03:01:16 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I have one item.
I would like a commendation to be given to Ashley Brundage,
a friend of many who is the winner of the 2015 PNC
performance award, highest employee achievement, December
3rd at 9:00 a.m.
03:01:41 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
December 3rd is a pretty full day.
03:01:46 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Okay.
How about instead of December 3rd, can we do it during a
CRA meeting?
03:01:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE, no we can't vote on it during a --
03:02:02 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
December 17th, another regular
session at 9 a.m.
03:02:10 >>FRANK REDDICK:
December 1th at 9 a.m.?
03:02:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Since they are all going to be --
03:02:16 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Maniscalco.
Seconded by Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
Yes, sir.
03:02:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Just to pass along that I did file with
the clerk today the minutes of your meeting last month so it
will be in the record.
Other than that I just wish everybody a happy Thanksgiving.
03:02:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I haven't done mine yet.
I have something else for you to research.
03:02:54 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mrs. Montelione?
03:02:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
As a follow-up to the action that was taken this morning, or
I should say inaction that was taken this morning, I asked
the stormwater staff, because I had previous discussion with
them, what this would mean to the projects that we already
had scheduled to be undertaken.
So I received a list.
Because of the action that we took, because we failed to
pass this morning's special assessment, we will be returning
$36,325,000 to SWFWMD, and four projects will not be
undertaken.
We will not be able to do the work that was scheduled for
the upper peninsula.
City of Tampa was putting in 18.35 million.
SWFWMD was putting in 18.5 million for a total cost of
$40,000 with FDOT contributing 3 million.
Lower peninsula, City of Tampa 325, we will be returning 325
to SWFWMD.
That's 325,000.
43rd street outfall, 2.5 million.
City of Tampa 2.5 million SWFWMD.
So 2.5 million will be going back and Cypress Street outfall
will also not be able to be completed, and that's 15 million
going back to SWFWMD and the City of Tampa was contributing
15 million.
So I would like to have the staff, stormwater staff come
back and further describe the projects, because I have the
fiscal year 16, fiscal year 17 and fiscal year 18 schedule
of projects.
This goes all the way out to 2020, of capital projects that
have been described, and I would like to know what those
four -- is that from the 16 schedule to 17 schedule?
So I really would like to have this discussed.
And Mr. Cohen, do we have a date?
03:05:00 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Go ahead.
03:05:00 >>HARRY COHEN:
Any date out want.
03:05:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I was told that --
03:05:09 >>FRANK REDDICK:
It seems you can text or call and ask them
to be here.
03:05:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I think there were a lot of people
expected these projects to be completed for stormwater
relief.
03:05:23 >>FRANK REDDICK:
And I think that's wasting staff time to
come here.
03:05:28 >>HARRY COHEN:
I think the projects on that list are things
that are programmed to come out of the general revenue fund
budget over the next four to five years.
And each year, those are things that they may be funded
under the assessment but they are programs if we choose to
pass a budget that includes that.
03:05:50 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
But we will not be able to afford them
because half of the projects are coming from SWFWMD.
So rather than us spending 36 million and SWFWMD spending 36
million and FDOT throwing in three of their own, we are
going to have to expend the entire cost, which is more than
72 million out of the City of Tampa general fund budget
because we are not getting any money from SWFWMD and not
getting any money from FDOT.
We have already received these funds so that they are
matching funds.
So these projects, whatever work that was completed on these
projects, they have to stop.
So whatever money we have already spent, the e-mail that I
got from Mr. Baird says based on your brief conversation
with Gina few minutes ago we need to withdraw applications
for funding from SWFWMD on the four projects below.
The e-mail prior to that was from Alex Awad who says this is
the future moneys we have to return to SWFWMD.
But we already have the 36 million so that we can go ahead
and plan it and engineer these projects, and we are not
going to be able to do that anymore because we have to
return SWFWMD's money.
03:07:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And I appreciate everything SWFWMD does
and all these agencies that collect taxpayer moneys, and
they do collect the taxpayers money.
They give you back a portion of what you need.
Not only the 16 counties that they cover.
I believe that SWFWMD has other counties under their
jurisdiction.
However, every year you get so much.
You get a lump sum.
If you ask them to do it the other way around, I don't think
they do it that way.
I think they give you the money or you give it back.
So it's a shame that they represent the taxpayers, and if
this city wanted to do a project, or any other city, anyone,
not us, anyone, maybe I'm wrong, but anyone who wants to do
business has to do it one way or the highway.
And it should be that all agencies that receive public funds
that some cities or counties or some jurisdiction want to do
something pay as you go can't do it because they won't give
you the money 234 equal payment.
They give it to you lump sum.
03:08:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So what I would like to know from staff
is I want to know how we are going to accomplish the
stormwater relief that those four projects would have
brought without SWFWMD money.
03:08:18 >> It's been a long day, okay?
We have been on this issue all day.
And I understand exactly what you are asking for.
There's no question that we need to take up the discussion
again.
I just wonder if perhaps we can take it up -- I just think
the whole issue, take it up when we come back after
Thanksgiving, that's all.
03:08:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
This remind me of penny sales tax, half
penny sales tax, one for rail, one for water.
The people are so confused they don't know what anyone is
doing.
That's why we have no trust.
No time if ever that this administration made that
presentation, not only not today but ever, so to take a vote
so they can take another bite at the apple and I am really
disgusted with that type of attitude.
And I usually don't speak that way.
But I'm telling you right now they had opportunities for the
last 60 or 90 days to bring it up.
They never brought it up.
So it's shame on them, not shame on me.
03:09:32 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I just want to make one request for TPD to
come before council on January 7th under staff reports
to discuss the increased extra presence in Ybor neighborhood
and what can be done to address the police increase.
03:09:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Second.
03:09:59 >>HARRY COHEN:
We have a motion from Councilman Reddick and
a bunch of seconds and I think Councilman Maniscalco was
first.
All in favor please indicate by saying aye for staff report
on January 7th from TPD.
Opposed?
Thank you.
03:10:15 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
Can I get a motion to receive and file?
Got a motion from Mr. Miranda.
Seconded by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
All right. Have a safe Thanksgiving, everybody. And make
sure the Kool-Aid be good.
(Meeting adjourned.)
DISCLAIMER:
This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete
accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of third
party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.