TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
July 18, 2013
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.


>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: City Council is called to order.
The Chair yields to Mr. Harry Cohen.
9:04:26AM >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I would like to
introduce Pastor Zelvis Applin of the South Tampa
Fellowship.
Pastor Applin recently moved from Texas to Tampa with his
wife and family to join the South Tampa Fellowship as their
worship pastor and director of music.
Good morning.
And please stand for the invocation and Pledge of
Allegiance.
9:04:45AM >> Good morning, City Council.
Good morning everyone.
Let's join in prayer and seek God's blessings in favor for

this meeting.
Heavenly father, we thank you for this opportunity for us to
be assembled together.
God, we thank you for this great city that we live in.
And we thank you for the leadership that you have placed in
order to legislate and to run the affairs of this city.
God, I pray that you would bless this time together.
That, God, as the agenda items are covered and as people
bring up their items today, God, I pray that there would be
peace in this place and that, God, your agenda would be
accomplished through your people today.
And God, we thank you for this time, we thank you for this
opportunity to be used by you to serve this city.
God, we pray your blessings upon the rest of our time
together this morning.
In Jesus name we pray.
Amen.
[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]
9:05:48AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Roll call.
[Roll Call]
9:06:02AM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
9:06:04AM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Present.
9:06:06AM >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
9:06:08AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.
9:06:11AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay, there are various items on the

agenda that are being pulled.
And I need -- the addendum is here, done by the clerk's
office.
I welcome everyone back for the great time we have been out
on vacation.
Need approval of the agenda and the addendum.
9:06:29AM >> So moved.
2:47:11PM >> Second.
2:47:12PM >> Item 20 is being pulled.
I believe item 77 -- I want to make sure that's correct.
77 is also being pulled.
And we'll get to -- if the administration would like to
speak on those, they're welcome to.
If not, when we get to them, we'll talk about them.
Yes, ma'am?
2:47:36PM >> MARY MULHERN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Sorry, I'm a bit late.
Number 7 I might have a question about, but I think it's
getting answered.
So could we pull it and I'll just move it -- sorry -- if get
the answers I need before the end of the meeting.
2:47:53PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Not at all.
Thank you very much.
Yes, ma'am?
2:47:57PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Mr. Chair, item number 52, I had a question.

And I spoke to one of the parties, but I still haven't
gotten the answer on how this total, how these monies were
brought to $1.6 million.
And I'd like, might have questions, I'm waiting for an
answer.
2:48:21PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
That's your committee.
When we get to it, you can bring it up.
What you just said about either pulling it or discussing it,
whatever you'd like to do.
No problem.
2:48:32PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.
2:48:32PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay.
I have a motion, I believe made, was that Mr. Suarez?
Second by Mr. Cohen for approval of the agenda and addendum.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye,
opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
We go to public comments for items on the agenda first.
Any item on the agenda, take in mind that 20 and 77 are
pulled.
So those are moot right now.
But any other items you'd like to speak on, come forward,
please.
All the agenda items first.
When you come up, your name, address and the item you want

to speak on.
Other than those that are set for public hearings, which are
set for standard time and must be spoken at that time.
Those are items that are set for public hearing, then those
are the items that have to be heard after that time.
Yes, ma'am?
2:49:26PM >> I think, is item number 60 for public hearing?
2:49:30PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We'll look at it right now.
Yes, it's public hearing.
That will be a substitute motion, but that comes up after
9:30 in the morning.
2:49:40PM >> Thank you.
2:49:41PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Yes, sir?
2:49:56PM >> Mr. Chairman, 59 and 60, just to clarify, are both public
hearings.
2:50:05PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes, sir.
2:50:06PM >> Thank you.
2:50:12PM >> Mr. Chairman?
2:50:13PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes, sir.
2:50:14PM >> Is the Perry Harvey Senior park renovation part of the
public hearing?
Is it on your agenda today?
2:50:25PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Reddick just advised me it's off the
agenda item.

You can speak on it as soon as we finish the first that are
on the items that wish to speak that are numbered.
Then you can speak on that item.
No problem, sir.
Next, please?
Any item on the agenda.
The number -- we'll start with then, sir, you were up first.
We'll speak on items off the agenda then.
2:50:53PM >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman and City Council, my name is
Eddie Adams Junior, 9504 Woodland Ridge Drive.
I am here to speak to you about issue or concern, it's been
in the paper.
There's a group of folks who support the historical Central
Avenue renovation, where the grove park is, skateboarders.
Before that slab of concrete that's bearing the ground now,
there was a rich and vibrant community that was there.
And that community was there for 150 years.
When I was younger, I traveled in South America and I kind
of, you know, found out that they had churches -- not trying
to say anything bad against the Catholics.
But they had Catholic churches on what used to be sacred
ground, Indian burial sites, because they wanted to prove a
point.
When the bulldozers went through in the '60s and the
'70s, and bulldozed many of the black communities in this

country, they put nothing there.
They made way for highways and they made ways for a lot of
stuff that ended up being nothing.
We have an opportunity now to preserve, resurrect what was
probably at one time, one of the most vibrant black business
communities in the southeast.
Other than Atlanta and maybe Miami.
Other than that, this was it.
Central Avenue had everything.
It had everything just north of the tracks that you guys had
in downtown Tampa.
Because during segregation, this was it for black folks.
To the time we settled this area as slaves, up until the
present day, that has been a minority black community.
The skateboarders who came along in 1978 and built the
skateboard park, we support their efforts to have a
skateboard park.
You know, it's the same as basketball.
I mean, it's something that we do and we appreciate their
religion, as they call it, not just cultural.
But beneath there lies 150 years of people who live, worked
and died in that community.
And that's all that's left of it, is the park.
And the most significant thing in Perry Harvey Senior Park
should be the statue of Perry Harvey Senior and what he

represented.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your efforts and I hope the city goes through
and do the redevelopment of that park as scheduled.
Thank you.
2:53:34PM >> Thank you, Mr. Adams.
Next please?
2:53:38PM >> Jonathan, 510 Harrison Street.
I think he has got a great idea.
I think he should be able to get both the skate park and a
monument put on that property.
It's big enough.
But I'm here to talk about my favorite subject, which is
code.
I just found out that Green Park is in civil court.
Now, if that information had come out by our legal
department, I wouldn't be so hot and heavy about it because
I understand the court system.
But no one bothered to say anything.
Anyway, Green Park needs to be cleaned up as soon as
possible.
As soon as can get legal to get everything done, it
definitely needs to be cleaned up.
But the fact that it went on for 10 years or longer is
ridiculous.

I found another one on 17th that has been going on for 10
years that is another slum lord.
I don't understand why code can't take action.
The other thing I want to talk about is mainly 20,000 civil
citations sent out.
At least.
Not one of them is reinspected to see if they comply.
Not only less than 10% show up for a court hearing that are
required to go to a court hearing.
Less than three percent pay their fines.
So I'm questioning, is this -- I mean, does it work?
Code has no way of telling if the program works or not.
All they can go is by hearsay.
I think somehow, some way we have to hold code accountable
for what they do, why they do it, and have it open to the
public.
I mean, 20,000 is ridiculous.
And I think it costs us 50 bucks for each time we file and
go to court.
Or file it in the court system.
Even the circuit court clerk tells me, they're not
enforceable.
They're non-collectible.
People that pay them are paying them out of their goodness
of their heart but we are just plain scared.

Just like people that do follow code are good people or
they're scared or something or other.
But the people, the hundreds and thousands of people that
don't comply is the problem.
The repetitiveness of cases on the same property, by the
same people, has got to stop.
Somehow, some way, we have to get this under control for the
health and safety of the neighborhoods.
Thank you.
9:16:04AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Next please, sir?
9:16:09AM >> Good morning.
My name is Mike Reeves.
I am president of Reeves Building, Plumbing and Roofing.
My address is 2309 East Osborne Avenue.
I am 57 years old.
I am here in support of the Perry Harvey Park, but I want to
add something to that.
I was over there looking couple days ago and kids are out
there having fun.
I need to make sure I say that.
It is a good area for kids to gather and skate, you know,
etcetera, etcetera.
So, in the decision of you guys and the powers that be, I
just hope you include everybody, kids, the park, kind of

make the thing work for everybody.
I just think that is important.
I just want to add that and say that I'm definitely for the
park -- not only that.
Just anything that talks about African-American history.
I mean, I've been in Tampa a long time.
And I travel a lot and there's not much in Tampa that deal
with African-American history around here.
And I think, I really think that needs to change.
But, getting back to the park.
When it's over, said and done, I just hope everybody can get
together and, I mean the kids are the future.
Remember that.
But the park is important too.
Thank you.
9:17:35AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much, sir.
Next please, sir?
9:17:39AM >> Good morning.
My name is Stanley Gray.
I reside at 3020 West Harborview Avenue in Tampa, Florida.
I'm here representing Saturday morning breakfast group, a
group which is comprised of African-American males of all
political backgrounds.
I'm here also to speak in support, really more of a request
for you to be mindful of the fact that our city really

doesn't have the proper recognition of African-American
contributions to the City of Tampa.
I can say that because I've lived all over this country.
I've been in Tampa 12 years now, which is approximately
three times longer than I've ever been any place.
And I'm really a little bit concerned by that fact.
If you went as an individual such as I have, you could find
little bits and pieces of the African-American contribution.
But not one place that speaks to the contributions that have
been made by African-Americans in this city.
If you would go over to the county building, you would look
north, you would see a park.
In that park it commemorates people who have made
contributions to the county.
I believe that if we're going to be truly a great city, that
we have got to recognize all the components of our city.
I think there's some very interesting things in Tampa.
One is of note, is that the hospital that was used for
African-Americans was actually started by a black nurse.
Mary Quaver, the Catholic church there is the oldest black
Catholic church in the state of Florida.
However, where it sits right now is actually the second
position.
The first one was burned down by whites who did not
appreciate Catholics teaching black children.

We also have a monument down in Port Tampa that commemorates
the buffalo soldiers.
I got to tell you, the monument that we have there is very
pitiful when you compare it to what's been done in the city
of Minneapolis.
Minneapolis is where the buffalo soldiers were disbanded.
There's a park commemorating them.
I know there's controversy between the skaters.
That's not the issue.
The issue, I'm urging you to be mindful of the contribution
that African-Americans have made to this city.
And as we go forward, in our planning and the execution of
the park right now, please be mindful of that.
There's been too much has been ignored.
If we're ever going to become a great city, we have got to
recognize all the components.
One last thing, everyone here would probably say slavery was
a terrible thing for our nation.
But I think that you can only do something about it when you
recognize it.
Even Annapolis, Maryland, has a spot where Kunta Kinte came
off the boat.
9:20:23AM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Chair, I just want to make a comment.
On July the 1st of this year, the Mayor sent a letter in
support of the Perry Harvey Park.

And yesterday, the board of county commissioners voted to
support the Perry Harvey Park.
And I have sent a letter as the Councilman who represents
that district that district and that area, in support for
the Perry Harvey park.
And when I get to that point, I'm going to ask this Council
to do the same, in support of the Perry Harvey park, thank
you.
9:20:59AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, Mr. Reddick.
Anything else?
Next -- thank you very much.
Appreciate it very much.
9:21:05AM >> I'm Ed Tillou from Sulphur Springs.
Yeah, one time somebody from the media saw me and he said
oh, yeah, you're the code enforcement guy.
I said oh, no.
And then he said, oh, you're the global warming guy.
Well, I do talk about global warming a lot.
I talked about it yesterday for instance at county
commission.
But I also talk a lot about food and I talk a lot about
history.
And today I'm going to try to talk a little bit about food
because that's what I'm circulating around.
The food festivals could, and I know there's a special

committee to meet with that and I haven't been able to get
to it.
But the thing is that food festivals are very important
because there's a lot of misunderstanding with food.
And there's all these fads, like for instance the latest one
is some woman has made millions of dollars on coconut oil.
Some millionaire that felt his heart problems were rooted
with foods, he got on that and palm oil and coconut oil was
largely discontinued from foods.
So there's all kinds of misinformation out there.
And some of it comes from the public health community.
For years and years, there's been this thing.
Oh, you got to eat three meals because there's all these
overweight people.
No, certain things it's better to eat between meals.
And a key and critical one is orange juice that has calcium
-- well, to get your calcium between meals.
And orange juice with calcium fortified, vitamin D fortified
is a very good way of getting that, but have it between
meals.
Also too surprisingly, Swiss Miss because the protein
content is so low.
Con-Agra, that's money in their pocket.
But the thing is, you also want it to be not from
concentrate.

A lot of people say, I like that better because it's
fresher.
Well, a lot of medical people know that Linus Pauling was
saying, orange juice is going, vitamin C is going to keep
you from getting cancer, getting colds and things like that.
And other scientists could not replicate that work.
And I believed that that was because they were using orange
juice from concentrate.
And I passed that along to the Linus Pauling foundation and
they researched it for God knows 15 to 20 years.
And they had the French do the heavy lifting.
But it comes out that the bioflavonoids that are destroyed
in the concentration probably assist in the absorption, the
French documented that they helped the absorption of vitamin
C, of which there's plenty now in the foods.
But the thing is, and then they showed that bioflavonoids by
themselves do not do anything.
So there's a cofactor, relationship there, so it's like a
second reading on Linus Pauling, Stafford's Linus Pauling, I
saw him once there sitting at the student union.
But anyway -- well, I got so far.
But I'll pick up on that.
Anyway, this man --
9:24:14AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.

Next please?
9:24:16AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I think in this country, if you didn't
get anything to eat for three years, you'd still be
overweight.
9:24:23AM >> I have something to say about that.
9:24:24AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I was just making a statement.
Next?
9:24:28AM >> Good morning.
Item 66, Linda Patten, 3415 West Ellicott Street.
9:24:38AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
66, that's a public hearing at 9:30.
9:24:45AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'm sorry, 66 is set for a public
hearing.
It's got to be heard after 9:30.
9:24:50AM >> My apologies.
9:24:52AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
No, my apologies.
I appreciate it very much.
Next, sir?
9:24:59AM >> Chip Thomas, 1219 East Henry Avenue, two issues I want to
address.
Number one, what could be considered the invasive species of
retail.
And here's a little diagram.
Family dollar, if I can say that, their web site.
And that's how many locations they have in the area.
Some of those are in the county, but the majority are in

city limits.
And how many more do we want?
They have blanketed this city.
And then there's dollar general, the Dollar Store.
And there's some other ones.
I think we're going to have a tough time, once they're
there, they're probably going to stay.
And there was a story recently about how Orlando was
considered more authentic than Tampa and of course people in
Tampa got all offended about that.
I can see every one of these dots, every additional one
diminishes the authenticity of an area.
And you might say well there's nothing in the law or in code
that allows us to prevent them from building stores when
they acquire the property.
Well, it's our city, let's change the law.
Let's create a code that prevents any, any business from
opening multiple stores within, you know, two miles of each
other or something to that effect.
I think we can do that.
And the longer we wait, the worse this plague is going to
get.
Issue number two is that, talk about the budget soon,
there's a budget shortfall again.
Solid waste apparently is in financial Dyer straits.

Why are we still picking up of residential waste twice a
week?
Come on one day and three days later they come again.
Rampant consumerism is on sabbatical if not completely dead.
So, amount of waste that people are creating is way down
from six years ago.
We have full size recycling bins and the amount of materials
that can be recycled is pretty long.
There just isn't that much to throw away.
And those bins, a family of six I doubt fills up a bin in a
week.
And I can tell you from experience, last year, there's three
of us in my household.
Five times I put that thing out.
That's how long it took to get filled.
And the stink factor is not that big of an issue.
It's got a lid.
There's a in be of hot weather southern cities, including
Tallahassee and Austin that have for many years been once a
week pickup.
Seems like a no-brainer way to save maybe just a little bit
of money.
In the meantime, to make it worse, if you walk or ride
around Tampa at all, you know how dirty our streets are.
And so, we're picking up garbage twice a week, way too much.

In the meantime, the streets are really dirty and I think
it's a bad reflection of the town and we should use our
resources a little better and spend more time picking up
roadside waste.
Thank you.
9:28:03AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Capin?
9:28:05AM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Please stay up there, sir.
Could you come back?
Would you put that sheet of the retail stores you had back
on the overhead?
It's upside down.
I want to get the gist of it.
Okay, this is one of the conglomerates, the family dollar
story.
The Dollar Store, the dollar general.
Many people are not aware of this one of the reasons that
these are so prevalent is because these are, many of these,
many, many of these are funded by private EB-5 regional
centers.
Which is directed foreign investment.
Because they cost about a million dollars each.
Many people don't know this.
But it is a formula that the private EB-5 centers use.
And this is one of the issues that I brought up here at City
Council that maybe our city could direct those EB-5 dollars

coming in to our city, that the Mayor and his economic
development McDonaugh are so proud of.
That's why we have these here.
If we had the numbers, and that's what I've been trying to
find out, is, how many of these are funded by direct foreign
investment, that's EB-5 dollars.
They cost about a million dollars each to set up.
There are ten jobs for sure, which is, that's a federal
program that is, that is a requirement.
So, when we look at, and we're all up in arms about direct
foreign investment, and why the city should not be part of
this, look at that.
Thank you.
If you don't know what an EB-5 center is, I'll be glad to
meet with you and tell you.
9:30:01AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Next please?
9:30:06AM >> Good morning, my name is Nick Diorio, 4732 East
Linebaugh.
Tampa, Florida, 33617.
I'm here regarding actually guy talked about it already,
lack of code enforcement.
It's relative to client of mine's property.
He owns about six of them in the City of Tampa.
They're all subject to, whether it's Tampa housing authority

inspection or city inspection, because of rental properties.
I want to put up one of these pictures.
That's one of his properties.
As you can see, it's a very nice, very well maintained
property.
Right next door, this is the lot that is right next door.
I've sent in a letter to code enforcement on the fourth of
June, of course it took about six weeks till those weeds got
high enough for me to be able to do that.
And at this point, I know it takes close to three months
before that will ever happen, even if the person does
respond to a court hearing.
So, at the end of that, it's going to be probably September.
It gets cut.
Okay.
Wintertime comes and I have to start this process all over
again.
Here's to show you exactly how high those weeds are.
They're as high as the fence that divides the property.
So two things I'd like to know is, one, can I somehow get
this process sped up?
And two, if I can't, once get it cut, once it is cut, am I
able to have somebody at our expense go on to that property
and maintain it?
Just so I don't have the problem with, you know, the snakes,

the bugs and of course the tenant next door.
That's all I have to say.
I'm just looking for some type of solution.
9:32:05AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
I can tell you that we have been looking at code enforcement
and making some changes regarding -- I'm just making a
statement -- regarding transferring some of the
responsibilities from that chapter to another chapter to
have exactly what you spoke about.
That will be coming out end of August, first part of
September.
Second had I what you spoke about, that not in your case,
but any case, no one has the right to go into somebody
else's property and do anything.
So I'm just letting you know, my opinion.
--
9:32:36AM >> I understand.
9:32:37AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I understand what you're talking about.
Ms. Mulhern?
9:32:41AM >>MARY MULHERN:
Yes, I was just going to say.
You could talk to my aide, call my office and we can look
into the particulars of those properties.
9:32:50AM >> All right.
Thank you.
9:32:52AM >>MARY MULHERN:
See if we can help.

9:32:54AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Next please?
9:32:57AM >> Good morning, Council.
Myron Griffin, 1010 east Clifton street, Seminole Heights.
And forgive me, I've been browsing as fast as I can, but I
think there was originally going to be a consideration on
the Council for Walmart.
Has that been moved to a differ day?
Or is that a nonpublic comment issue on today's.
9:33:17AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I don't know of any today.
There are so many Walmarts, Kmarts.
9:33:26AM >> This is discussing the new Walmart proposed at the corner
of 19th and Hillsborough Avenue.
[Inaudible]
9:33:36AM >> It is not today.
Forgive me then.
9:33:39AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All right.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Anyone else?
All right.
Public comments is completed.
We go to request by anyone in the audience for any past
legislative matters that this Council passed in the previous
meeting couple weeks ago.
Anyone to discuss that at all?

I see no one.
We go to committee reports.
Consent agenda.
Number one is public safety, Mr. Frank Reddick.
9:34:06AM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Move items 1 through 8.
9:34:12AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
7, someone talked about that.
That all right.
9:34:16AM >>MARY MULHERN:
I'm fine.
9:34:16AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
So 1 through 8 is fine.
Motion by Mr. Reddick, have a second I believe by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
We go to parks, recreation, Ms. Mary Mulhern.
9:34:33AM >>MARY MULHERN:
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I move items 9 through 13.
9:34:37AM >> Second.
9:34:37AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion by Ms. Mulhern, second by
Mr. Reddick.
Further discussion by Councilmembers?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Public works committee chair, Mr. Mike Suarez.

9:34:49AM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair.
I move items 14 through 19, 20 has been removed and 21
through 29.
9:35:00AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion by Mr. Suarez, I have a
second by Mr. Cohen.
Further discussion by Councilmembers?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Finance committee chair, Mr. Harry Cohen.
9:35:13AM >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you, move items 30 through 38.
9:35:15AM >> Second.
9:35:16AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Mr. Cohen, second by
two individuals, give it Mr. Reddick, I believe.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Building, zoning and preservation committee chair,
Ms. Montelione.
9:35:33AM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move items 39 through 51.
I would like to highlight number 51, which is our 2014, one
year action plan, which includes funding for homeless
services, which we'll be talking about later on today.
9:35:49AM >> Second.

9:35:50AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Ms. Montelione, second
by Ms. Mulhern.
Further discussion by Councilmembers?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Transportation committee chair, Ms. Yvonne Yolie Capin.
9:36:04AM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I move items 53 through 56.
And 52, I still have not received an answer.
I did talk to Mr. Irvin Lee and he said that this would be a
matter of the finance budget department.
And what I'm trying to figure out here, we have
$1.6 million.
And it says it's coming from either additional revenue or
unappropriated surplus or funds previously appropriated,
which nor longer needed for their original purpose, or, and
are available for transfer.
So I was trying to figure out how is this put together?
Was it, are we adding new revenue?
Is it appropriated from surplus?
And what surplus?
And also, where was appropriated and it's no longer needed
for its original purpose.
And I have not gotten that answer.
9:37:02AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All right.

So you move 53 through 56.
You want to hold 52 if you do get the answer.
9:37:10AM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
9:37:11AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion by Ms. Capin, seconded by
Cohen.
53 through 56. Holding 52.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Let me just correct, been handed a memo, item number 20, I
need a motion to bring that item back in two weeks.
9:37:31AM >> So moved.
9:37:32AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mr. Suarez, second by
Ms. Montelione.
Item number 20.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
I'm going to go now into the public hearing for 9:30.
But before I do that, I'm honored to have someone here with
some students from the Hillsborough Education Foundation,
Ms. Lindsey Ortega.
I believe she has some students with citizens training to
make better citizens and maybe outstanding elected officials
one day.

So I'd like them to stand up and be recognized, we can do
that.
If Ms. Ortega would like to say a couple words, she's
entitled to two minutes.
9:38:11AM >> I'd just like to say thank you very much for having us
here.
Members that I have with me, are AmeriCorps members at the
Hillsborough Education Foundation.
Completing their year of service on the 31st.
So they have about two weeks left.
They've been serving in the Hillsborough County public
schools, providing one-on-one mentoring for students and
also helping out at the YMCA in Sulphur Springs.
And as part of their year of service, they need to do a
citizenship training.
We are lucky enough to be able to attend this meeting today
to fulfill that requirement.
So thank you very much for having us.
9:38:47AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We're very honored that you're here and
your students.
Good luck.
Ms. Mulhern?
[ Applause ]
9:38:58AM >>MARY MULHERN:
I just want to say thank you to the
AmeriCorps volunteers for what you do.

That's great.
I have nieces who are doing the same thing in other cities.
9:39:09AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
We go to 9:30 public hearings.
These are public hearings set for second reading and
proposed ordinance, which are items 57 through 63.
These are nonjudicial proceedings at this time.
Any items that have been received through any elected
official or other means like the clerk's office, 57 through
63, let's make a motion to receive and file them.
Motion by Ms. Montelione, second by Mr. Reddick all in favor
of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Need a motion to open 57 through 63.
9:39:43AM >> So moved.
9:39:44AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Ms. Montelione, second by
Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Items 57 through 63 is now open.
57 is a substitute ordinance.
9:39:59AM >> Thank you.
Rebecca Kert, legal department.

Item 57 is an ordinance being presented for second reading
and I adoption relating to prohibiting excessive noise.
As you will recall, we are adding a prohibition on excessive
noise that's plainly audible from a hundred feet.
The only change between the first and second reading, as I
told you at the first reading, was I originally proposed a
change to how we measure the decibel levels.
Based upon the fact we have cases pending and speaking to
our municipal prosecutor, we believe it's best to see how
those cases play out before we make any changes.
So that's the only difference between first and second
reading.
I'm available if there are questions.
9:40:33AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, Ms. Montelione?
9:40:36AM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Hi, Miss Kert.
Could you discuss, because what's of interest to me, is the
prosecution penalties for violation of this noise ordinance.
9:40:46AM >>REBECCA KERT:
Yes, this ordinance will be enforced
pursuant to 23.5, which is your section that regulates civil
citations.
And if you approve a subsequent ordinance today, amending
23.5, this will be a level two, which it's punishable, the
original citation, the fine is $150, $300 and eventually
$450 for a third and subsequent violation.
9:41:09AM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Is that in line with the noise ordinance

we passed for noise emanating from motor vehicles?
9:41:15AM >>REBECCA KERT:
They are both level twos, yes.
9:41:18AM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay, thank you.
9:41:19AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay.
These ordinances are public hearings.
Anyone can speak on them.
I know they had some citizens who came up, wanted to speak
on ordinances.
I don't remember all the numbers of them.
But if one was 57, this is the time.
We'll have the ordinance read.
And then take comments from the public.
The city attorney just spoke.
One assistant city attorney.
Anyone in the audience care to speak on item number 57?
Please come forward.
9:41:56AM >> Move to close.
9:41:58AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion to close by Mr. Red kick,
second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
I usually go back and give them back to the original maker
of the first ordinance, Ms. Mulhern.
You read this one.

It's yours.
9:42:13AM >>MARY MULHERN:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move an ordinance of the City of Tampa, Florida, relating
to prohibiting excessive noise, making revisions to City of
Tampa code of ordinances, chapter 14, offenses, amending
section 14-151 excessive noise prohibited repealing all
ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith;
providing for severability; providing an effective date.
9:42:36AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All right.
Please say one word, substitute ordinance.
9:42:40AM >>MARY MULHERN:
This is the substitute ordinance.
9:42:43AM >> Second.
9:42:43AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
I have a motion made by Ms. Mulhern, second by Mr. Reddick.
This is a roll call vote.
Vote and record.
9:42:57AM >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
9:43:01AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Okay, we go to the 58, ordinance 58.
Anyone in the city present this morning, who care to speak
on item 58?
Yes, ma'am.
9:43:15AM >>REBECCA KERT:
Thank you.
This is an ordinance being presented for second reading
relating to alcohol in your city parks.

Your code contains a list of specific parks where people
can, non-profit groups can apply to have a temporary alcohol
permit.
During recodification, three parks were inadvertently
dropped from the list.
This adds those.
I'm available if any questions.
9:43:37AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any questions from Councilmembers at this
time?
Anyone in the public care to speak on item 58, please come
forward.
I see no one.
9:43:47AM >> Move to close.
9:43:48AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion to close by Mr. Suarez, second by
Mr. Reddick at this time.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Ms. Capin, would you kindly take number 58?
Substitution ordinance.
9:44:02AM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.
An ordinance of the City of Tampa, Florida, making revisions
to the City of Tampa code of ordinances, chapter 14,
offenses, amending sections 14-150.1.3, possession,
consumption on property operated or supervised by the parks

and recreation department, temporary alcohol beverage
special use permits granted for public area facility or
property operated or supervised by the parks and recreation
department:repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances
in conflict therewith; providing for severability; providing
an effective date.
9:44:38AM >> Second.
9:44:38AM >>I have a motion bring Capin, second by Mr. Suarez.
Further discussion by Councilmembers?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Item number 59.
9:44:53AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Roll call.
Vote and record.
9:44:57AM >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
9:45:05AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Item 59, yes, ma'am?
9:45:12AM >>REBECCA KERT:
I am here for an ordinance being presented
for second reading, modifying portions of chapter 14 dealing
with solicitation.
I have made all the changes as directed by City Council
between first and second reading.
In short, this ordinance will create certain areas of the

city where no solicitation is permitted.
That is downtown Ybor area, bus stops or transit stops,
sidewalk cafes or area within 15 feet of any direction of
ATM or entrance to a financial institution.
And the area is the same as it was previously, the
prohibited area generally, except that city council had
directed that the eastern boundary be extended from 22nd
Street to 26th street and so we have made that change.
I'm available if there are any questions.
9:46:02AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any questions at this time?
Thank you very much.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone in this audience care to speak on this item?
Number 59, please come forward.
9:46:15AM >> Good morning.
My name is Stewart Hartman and I am homeless.
I don't panhandle per se.
I sit in front of CVS every day.
I don't have people for money.
I tell people good morning.
I have conversations with people.
The aggressive panhandling that you all are against, I am
also against.
I don't believe in chasing money.
I figure if I can't sit there and look like I need it, then

I don't need it.
I see it every day, people running up to people, hey, give
me 50 cents, giver me 50 cents.
No, I don't agree with that either.
But as far as me sitting in a public property, 25 feet from
a door of any business, not asking people for money, just
greeting people each morning, I don't want to fall in the
category of a panhandler.
Is all I guess I'm more or less speaking for myself.
I guess that's it.
9:47:21AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much, sir.
Next please?
9:47:36AM >> Speaker waiver form, Mr. Chair.
Troy cleft, are you present?
One extra minute, please.
9:47:45AM >> Good morning, my name is Don rode.
Office 412 Madison street.
In reference to the ordinance, both as it's been submitted
and then subsequently amended, I'm in favor of a ban on all
panhandling.
I think as I've said before here, that all that is immoral.
Proceeds are ill got.
This ordinance is a bad ordinance.
I'd just like to run down some of the reasons why that it
needs to be clarified so that a potential law breaker, a

panhandler has notice of what they're doing wrong, and its
potential victim has notice of what the bad guy is doing to
him.
Okay?
Starting with, this is what will become or already is
section 14.46 B.
You have this area called the downtown Ybor prohibited zone.
Because the ordinance defines and prohibits solicitation and
makes no exception within that ordinance, other than for
somebody that Merrill holds a sign, and the sign holding
thing is a problem too.
But setting that aside for a moment, this microphone and
this building sit within the zone.
There is a lot of soliciting that goes on at this microphone
when you look at the desks of soliciting in this ordinance.
This microphone is where a lot of people come to get money
for themselves or for others.
There's no provision varied for soliciting at the
microphone.
The map that delineates the zone doesn't appear to be a
proper map in the sense that it really all it does is tell a
person where the Hillsborough river is located and the path
that it takes through downtown.
If you look at that map, the boundaries, the specific
boundaries of the prohibited zone are not delineated or

defined on the map.
Meaning again, a person who, like moles of us, who maybe own
a piece of property that has a metes and bounds description,
it's rather unintelligible to just have a bunch of
proceeding from this point to this point to this point to
this point -- it's not something that a common person would
have any idea of where the boundary zone lines are.
That map should really include some definition.
It includes none.
You might remember from the clean zone days around the
convention ordinance, the first three blocks of Harbor
Island and so forth, at some point I think you guys actually
had a clean map and at some point before that, the map was
objected to as not being a good copy of what needs to put a
person again on notice so that they don't violate the law.
Then if you look at the bus trolley provision.
The ban there is in, on or at.
There's no halo or safe zone around the bus stop or trolley
stop.
Meaning that a person could stand right beside the trolley
stop and panhandle.
Somebody approaching or somebody leaving.
Sidewalk cafes are essentially the same.
Now, recently, the ATM bank provision got amended to include
I thought a credit union.

Now a financial institution.
Financial institution is not defined anywhere.
Does it mean Amscot?
Should a person be protected any less coming out of an
Amscot than they would be coming out of a bank?
Statements an Amscot is more of a financial institute than
any bank is.
Then going to -- I'm only naming a future of defects that I
located in this thing.
Then going to the idea of a complete exemption for a sign
holder.
If I'm holding a sign and someone approaches me and engages
me in discussion about my sign, do I have to (mumbling) or
am I allowed to speak to them?
Statute is very unclear.
And these are only a few points.
Thank you.
9:51:51AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much, sir.
Next please?
9:51:58AM >> Good morning.
I'm Mike Doyle.
6005 north ninth street, Tampa, Florida.
I'm a 20 year Tampa residents and a member of downtown
sacred heart church, saint Vincent DePaul society.
In that role I work in the trenches daily with our homeless

and near homeless neighbors.
And my comments will reference and I offer the following
observations.
Number one, efforts obtained at imposing control rather than
exploring long-term solutions to any issue that you face are
likely a waste of time.
Homelessness and near homelessness are merely symptoms of a
bigger issue.
That issue is justice.
Second, community transformation experts will suggest
resisting the natural tendency to look to controls versus
resorting back to the mission that you deliver for all
citizens.
Including the homeless and near homeless.
Three, if not in line, if these ordinances are not in line,
what actions do you need to take as a Council?
To include versus isolate those struggling with
homelessness.
And allow them to share as beneficiaries in the city's
mission.
Fourth, our Tampa agency community has generously delivered
charities to those struggling with homelessness.
However, these people deserve justice.
Including respect and very, very basic dignity that only our
city and county officials can provide.

Can we make life any more miserable for our Tampa neighbors
that are homeless?
Yes, your proposed ordinance certainly contributes to that.
For neighbors that are homeless.
And not the only ones to feel the impact of the short sided
ordinances the entire agency community are directly impacted
by your enforcements of those ordinances.
Agencies are -- our neighbors in Pinellas County offer two
better practice models of charity and justice for our
collected consideration and discussion leading to a broader
strategy.
Pinellas safe harbor, sheriff's department, public model and
Pinellas hope, a Catholic charities private model that we
have explored before without success.
Working for justice is messier and far less rewarding than
charity.
There are no quick fixes.
And the most common reason for quitting is discouragement.
To report a recent Tampa Bay Times editorial, your task as
Councilmembers, you search for common ground and broad
strategy that passes legal muster and have a chance of
working.
In the end, your deliberations, actions and ordinances, if
any, ideally reflect what is fair and just for all citizens
of Tampa, both current and future.

Including those with no voice and declining options to be
part of their chosen community.
Thank you.
9:55:05AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much, sir.
Next please?
[ Applause ]
9:55:11AM >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you Councilmembers.
My name is Jeff Zampitella.
At 777 North Ashley Drive.
Otherwise known as SkyPoint.
I come here today, I'm the president of the board at the
condo.
And we are in favor of you passing this ordinance.
We have 761 registered residents in our building.
And one of the biggest complaints that we hear over and over
as to why our residents are not patronizing the Franklin
retail and other surrounding businesses are because of the
homeless in the area and the aggressive homeless.
So for that reason, we ask that you do pass this ordinance
and we're strongly in favor.
Thank you.
9:55:58AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Next please?
9:56:04AM >> Good morning.
My name is Christina Dougherty.

I'm a licensed clinical social worker.
And I've worked in the areas of mental health, homelessness
and substance abuse in Tampa for the last 13 years.
I would just like to say I'm supporting this ordinance
regarding solicitation.
I do believe that there are adequate resources at the time,
at this time for people to get things that they are needing
regarding food and other necessary resources.
I just believe that, that the Tampa PD are knowledgeable
about these resources and can help these people get to some
of these resources, such as food pantries, Metropolitan
Ministries.
There's various churches and organizations that would
welcome these people and are willing to help these people if
they can be directed to those places.
I've actually spent a lot of time in the parks and talking
to the homeless people regarding why they're there and I
have offered food coupons.
I've offered rides to detoxes and things other than giving
them money.
And many have refused.
Most of them are interested in just receiving money for
using it for their whatever purpose that they're wanting.
So I believe that the issue is more than just asking for
money.

I think that the money many times, because these people are
mentally ill or you know, substance, have substance abuse
issues, are using it for that purpose rather than for the
purposes, you know, that there are resources out there to
help them.
So, I'm a resident of Ridgewood Park at 2309 Ridgewood
Avenue.
And that's the area next to Tampa Heights.
And we do have a lot of homeless in our area and are
affected by that.
And I noticed that the parks in Tampa Heights and in
Ridgewood Park are not populated by people that, you know,
just joggers or bicyclers or things like that, because there
is such a large number of homeless people soliciting there.
They are intimidated to go into those areas because of the
aggressive panhandling that is there.
So I'm just hoping that we have some tool to be able to move
these people to get the resources that they really need.
Thank you.
9:58:36AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.
Mr. Reddick in.
9:58:39AM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mr. Chair, I hold to the last speaker.
9:58:41AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Next please?
9:58:42AM >> Good morning, Councilmember also.
I'm sorry.

I arrived late and haven't been sworn.
9:58:47AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
This is not -- this is nonjudicial.
Downtown have to be sworn.
9:58:54AM >> Being late is tough.
I'm Christine Burdick, and I reside at 721 South Fielding
Avenue.
I want to talk to you today as private citizen and from my
own personal reference.
I have been in town for 11 years and about 10 years ago,
joined the board of the homeless coalition, the new homeless
coalition at that time.
Served there up until last year, seven years as a board
member.
And I joined a year ago, I joined the Salvation Army
advisory board.
So I am a person who has personally and voluntary basis as
well associated with my profession, been involved and been
an observer of the condition of homelessness in our city and
also the various methods and means and people who have tried
to address it.
I want to encourage your careful consideration of the two
ordinances that you are considering today on second reading.
I have never seen in the 10 years reference that I have,
more opportunity and collaboration that is happening today.
And likewise, there is more of a problem than we have seen

at many times in the last 10 years.
Our police department, the sheriff's department are being,
are going above and beyond their call of duty in being
sensitive and doing outreach in the absence of many other
agencies who in other cities do that.
The homeless coalition has the leadership and has discovered
many new programs and is trying, is very successfully today
collaborating the various service providers, so they are
working as a team.
I also work for the downtown partnership and we have been
part of a planning process inviting, involving the city
legal department, the police department, the homeless
coalition, and looking at some of the physical changes that
can happen in the parks downtown and looking at the way as a
team of people who are very interested and sympathetic to
the issues of all the people who use downtown.
But especially the opportunity for services that many people
who congregate on the streets have not had an opportunity to
know about or to avail themselves of.
And so, I really think that the ordinance before you do not
suggest as much a hammer approach as they do the sensitive
and the collaborative opportunity of our community in order
to really step up a level and really help people who need
services.
And give people who choose not to have services another

option.
Thank you.
10:01:28AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Next please?
10:01:35AM >> Susan Long, 920 Broad Street.
One brief statement.
If this is what you need here, that's what we need where we
live.
This should be for the whole city or for nobody.
Why you think that we're happy with something that you're
not happy with?
That's my only statement.
10:01:54AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Anyone else who has not spoken?
This is on item 59.
Come forward.
10:02:06AM >> My name is Steve Sapp.
110 west Mohawk avenue.
My main concern is actually 60 rather than 59.
10:02:17AM >> Some of it kind of blends together.
I prepared mostly for 60, but always I seen today a lot
seems to kind --
10:02:23AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Well, we got to hear 60 before we speak
on it.
10:02:26AM >> I understand.

All kind of flows together here.
You know, these folks that are panhandling, that are in
these areas, there's 17,260 widespread homeless in the area.
A lot of people say there's plenty of services that are out
there for these folks to have.
I agree there are some services.
I find it hard to believe that 17,260 are referring the
services.
How the number doesn't really change from year to year.
Seems like it only gets worst.
So I'll save the remainder for the next item.
But, that's what I have to say about that.
10:03:07AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Next please?
10:03:11AM >> Hello.
My name is Eva and I just had a couple of words.
10:03:18AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Last name?
10:03:19AM >> Eva Henry.
10:03:22AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.
10:03:23AM >> Thank you.
I understand why businesses might feel threatened by people
panhandling in their establishments.
And sometimes it might feel threatening and I understand
that those establishments do need to be protected.
And that if there is behavior which is threatening, that

there needs to be addressed.
However, I think that there may be solutions that are
win-win solutions for both the establishments in question
and those homeless people that are panhandling because they
have no money, they have no place to stay.
And it is a free country.
And they have rights also.
The question is, how not to impinge on others' rights in the
process.
I wanted to mainly share Matthew chapter 25, verse 35.
I am sure many of you are familiar with the passage that
says that Jesus was separating the sheep from the goats.
And basically he said you were a goat because you didn't
help me.
You didn't feed me when I was hungry.
You didn't give me a place to stay when I needed a place to
stay.
And they replied, well, when did we see you and not give you
a place to stay when you were homeless?
When did we see you hungry and not feed you?
And it all talked about, when were you sick and in prison
and we didn't visit you?
And Jesus replied, whenever you did this to the least of
these, my brethren, you did this to me.
Or for me.

And then, he says to the goats, those who didn't care depart
from me and he sends them to hell.
And I know that that's a little bit strong and a little bit
harsh, but, the underlying point is that we don't want to
lose sight of compassion for those that are the least among
us.
According to us.
You know, we don't know who they may be according to God.
10:06:18AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All right.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate it very much.
[ Applause ]
10:06:21AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anyone else who has not spoken care to
speak on item number 59?
I see no one else.
Need a motion to close.
Motion by Ms. Montelione, second by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
On 59, this hearing is closed.
Mr. Suarez, would you kindly take 59 please?
10:06:44AM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair.
I present a substitute ordinance for second reading and
adoption, ordinance of the City of Tampa, Florida, the

making revisions to the City of Tampa code of ordinances,
chapter 14, offenses, amending section 14-46, threatening,
intimidating or harassing behavior for purposes of
solicitation, repealing all ordinances or parts of
ordinances in conflict therewith; providing for
severability; providing an effective date.
10:07:13AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
This is second reading.
Roll call vote.
Vote -- I have a motion read by Mr. Suarez, second by
Ms. Montelione.
Roll call vote.
Before we vote, Ms. Mulhern wants the floor.
Ms. Mulhern?
10:07:25AM >>MARY MULHERN:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to say that I'm not going to vote for this
because I agree with some of the provisions ban
aggressiveness, but I believe this also bans asking for,
asking for help and I don't feel that we're at a point where
we can criminalize asking for help on the streets.
10:07:48AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
10:07:54AM >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Mulhern voting no.
10:08:05AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you all very much.
Item number 60.

10:08:13AM >>REBECCA KERT:
Thank you.
I am here for item 60 as well.
Item 60 is an amendment to again chapter 14 of your code,
regulating behavior in public spaces in particular.
I have submitted a substitute ordinance to make the changes
as requested by City Council between first and second
reading.
Including changing the number of times that the individual
is transported to three times before there's a possibility
of arrest.
And to also make a provision that the region charge for
storage will be waived if the person demonstrates that they
do not have an ability to pay.
I'm available for questions.
10:08:57AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Montelione?
10:08:59AM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, Ms. Kert.
I am supporting this ordinance.
And I supported the previous ordinance.
And the reasons why has been discussed on this Council the
last time that we were here.
But what I'm trying to do with the ordinance as presented is
what I asked you to do is make it a little bit better.
And I think the changes that we made to the storage
provision and -- I'm still not happy with the three times.
But I'll take what I can get.

I would like that provision to be removed completely because
it takes a lot of trust building and it takes a lot of
interaction before you can help someone who has called the
streets their home.
And speaking of home, and a lot of discussion has occurred
as to what the city is or is not doing.
And I'm very glad to see Mr. Snelling and officer McDonald
in the room here today, because I do -- you know, I asked
the indulgence of Council, but I do want to hear from the
two of them about what the city is doing and the positive
things that are happening.
I've been involved in the department of housing, the HUD,
ICH program.
I've attended the charettes.
I have attended the meetings.
I've been on the conference calls.
I've worked with the housing first partners to find
locations for additional housing in the housing first model.
I've put them in a car and driven them around looking at
sites to find places where they can buy and rehab
properties, install a property, a manager that would
properly oversee the individuals who reside there, just as
they did in unincorporated Hillsborough County.
I've gotten the support of the Mayor.
I've gotten the support of staff.

And the homeless coalition, Maria Barcus was here last time
talking about how the model going forward is housing first.
It's not the incremental housing model.
And those things were talked about in the CHS report that
was presented, framework to inform the Hillsborough plan to
prevent and end homeless.
Although yes, this is a report to Hillsborough County, but
the City of Tampa is within Hillsborough County jurisdiction
and boundaries.
And all three cities of Hillsborough County, including
Temple Terrace and plant city, have been involved in this
process.
And the recommendations that came out of this report speak a
lot to preventing homelessness.
And to expanding discharge planning from hospitals, critical
time intervention, use existing foster care to prevent
homelessness.
Trauma, training of agency staff workers.
I could go on and on.
The list of what we need to do to address the issues of
homelessness is very, very long.
And Ms. Burdick is right.
I've never over seen the coordination and participation of
every agency of this city sitting at one table trying to
find what is the right path.

And we have been traveling down the right path.
And what we're trying to do is have everyone work together.
Not have fractured efforts going in different directions.
Or duplicating each other's work.
Because many dollars are wasted in federal money and state
money and in local funds when people are working
simultaneously on the same issue, but not talking or
cooperating.
I noticed in the handout that Ms. Mulhern's aide gave to us
that Pinellas County, there's a chart on here where the
funding comes from for Pinellas safe harbor.
And federal chronic minor offender grant.
Federal re-entry grant, state criminal justice reinvestment
grant.
Federal last second chance grant.
Those grants go to the county to be administered by the
county.
The city of St. Petersburg, $100,000 for one year.
It doesn't say what source of the city of St. Petersburg
funding is, that $100,000 comes from.
But there's also another chart in here where the city out of
our CDBG funding has a total, actually has two columns here
for totals, so I'm not sure, there's no column heading, so
I'm not sure the dollars.
But Thom, Mr. Snelling, if you could just briefly tell us if

you can, the number of dollars that the City of Tampa and
CDBG funds spends on either preventing homelessness or on
homeless services.
Because according to the CDBG agencies recommended for
fiscal year '12, which is a little out of date, had
$1,094,141 in one column and $511,000 in the other column.
10:14:24AM >> Thom Snelling, planning development services director.
I don't have the complete break down on that.
I mean I have the break down.
I wasn't prepared to actually go into that detail today.
I apologize for that.
But I did bring some of the information from the FY14
budget.
And of course all the ESG dollars go into the homelessness
and homelessness prevention kinds of activities.
10:14:50AM >> And ESG stands for?
10:14:52AM >> Emergency solutions grant.
Just we found out today, we didn't find out today, but today
there's going to be a conference call that we're
participating in with HUD to specifically talk about the
opening doors and federal strategic plan to prevent and end
homelessness because they recognize that ESG funding has
been cut, so they're encouraging municipalities and Tampa's
been identified as one of those municipalities, to look at
different ways to further leverage their resources or

redirect some of their existing resources to more emergency
solution grant kinds of opportunities as well as rapid
rehousing opportunities.
That conference call today, that will be part of my report
when I come back, whenever my next schedule is.
Let you know what happened there.
But the other things obviously we work a lot with the
Metropolitan Ministries, they both receive funding this
year.
Continue the work that they're doing.
Emergency relocation, although you tend to think you don't
identify that as homeless, but you if you remember, we use
those emergency relocation funds and this year, there's
$50,000 for that as well.
Is when we did close down the warehouse that was on seventh
street.
And the trailer park where they were condemned.
10:16:12AM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Individuals that otherwise wrote have
been homeless.
10:16:15AM >> They would've been kicked out, nowhere to go so the
emergency, or relocation money that we used goes towards
that as well.
We also have over $400,000 available for tenant rental
assistance, which is, long story short, it's very similar to
section 8 type housing voucher.

That is used to supplement income and people, we administer
that through our RFP process.
We award that money for people who minister.
But that translates into a direct place where someone can
find a place to live.
Again, it's preventing the homelessness.
The city is very involved in the prevention and affordable
housing parts of ending homelessness, versus something like
the safe house.
10:17:01AM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, and that's the point I wanted to
make, Thom.
Thank you for that.
And it's in the suggested strategies that was developed,
there are six issue areas.
And you know, I just want to highlight one of the six.
Which is housing first.
And housing first is an alternative to a system of emergency
shelter, transitional housing progressions, rather than
moving homeless individuals or families through different
levels of housing, whereby each level moves them closer to
independent housing, for example, from the streets to public
shelter and from public shelter to transitional housing
programs and from there to their own apartment in the
community.
Housing first moves the homeless individual or household

immediately from the streets or homeless shelters into their
own apartments.
Which is the model that is being followed and recommended by
professionals around the country.
Because once you get someone in a stable environment, where
they're not worried about where they're going to go next,
and they can stay be indefinitely until they are on their
feet and stabilized, with oversight from mental health
professionals, that's the way you assist individuals who are
homeless.
It's not, it's not giving them the opportunity to avoid the
issue that brought them to the street in the first place.
I met with Dan McDonald, Officer McDonald, who is our
homeless advocate from the Tampa Police Department.
And the good news is that there are things that they're
working on and one of them is a devotion program.
He's worked with the prosecutor in Hillsborough County so
that violators of not only this ordinance, but other of our
city ordinances, because we have 1.6, which is the arrest
provision in our code for a lot of violations of our
ordinances.
But one thing a special prosecutor would do, it would
provide a magistrate who would be able to work with the
homeless directly and, if they meet certain benchmarks, you
know, get their ID, see their caseworker, do those kinds of

things.
They won't be going to jail.
But there will be some sort of oversight and there will be
some kind of channeling into the programs that they need to
stay homeless -- to stay off the streets.
And that's a wonderful I think very valuable program.
And I'm sure we'll be picking up some of the funds for that.
So, I'm sure that my colleagues will have a lot to say, but
there are good things happening.
We have a grant application in process to add more officers
so that Officer McDonald isn't out there by himself.
Sheriff's office has deputy Donaldson out there as well.
But, hopefully we'll find out in September whether or not we
have gotten that grant to add to Officer McDonald's detail.
You know, this is a very complex issue.
But I do think that this ordinance is the first step in
moving in the right direction.
I think this ordinance puts people in a position where you
have to choose.
You can no longer choose to live on the streets off the
welfare of others.
You have to be responsible for yourself.
And for those who cannot do that, have medical problems,
have drug issues, have mental health issues, we can find the
proper care for those individuals through the models that

have been developed by all of the people who have been
working for almost two years, because I got involved as soon
as I was elected.
And these groups have been meeting, I know it started way
long time ago.
We have been talking about this issue for probably 20 or
more years.
But this is the first time that I've ever seen such progress
so quickly.
So, I am in support and I'm sorry I took so much of your
time, Council.
10:21:12AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Any other Councilmember?
Mr. Reddick and Ms. Mulhern, in that order.
10:21:18AM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This past Tuesday, I had the opportunity to meet with Major
James Hall, who is the New Tampa area commander for the
Salvation Army.
Officer McDonald participated in that meeting with me.
Major Hall only been here for three weeks.
But he wanted to be a part of this discussion.
He made it known to us that he would love to be part of this
discussion.
I even reached out to Mr. Snelling and asked him to make
contact with him.

Because he is making changes at Salvation Army that probably
meet a lot of needs that we're discussing here today.
One of them is that he's talking about is storage space.
Making his building accessible for storage space.
So that, I don't know if many of you don't understand.
These people major pride and joy is their belongings.
That's the only thing they have, their belongings.
When that he walking the street, whether pushing a cart or
carrying a bunch of bags, the only pride and joy they have
that belongs to them is their belongings.
One of the recommendations Major Hall discussed with me is
they're making sure space is available to store their
belongings and making sure it's secure.
And he's willing to participate in this process.
He also would like to reach out and meet with the homeless
coalition.
He wanted to meet with every organization that currently
participates in this process, to have his agency to adapt
and adjust to what is going on and see how he can help
resolve some of these problems that we're encountering in
the City of Tampa.
He also extending meetings with the Metropolitan Ministry
people.
I think by Major Hall being here for only three weeks,
having the opportunity to meet with him last Tuesday, and

for an ordinance to be voted on today, I would like to see
us delay this ordinance by 60 days to give Major Hall an
opportunity to meet with McDonald, meet with Mr. Snelling,
meet with the homeless coalition and see if he can include
something in the ordinance where his facility can be
available, space, accommodating to help deal with this
homeless issue in order for us to meet the needs of those
people in that population.
And I think in all fairness to him, only being here three
weeks, coming from out of state, this is not a crisis here.
And this can be extended by 60 days to allow him that
opportunity.
That is what I'll be more inclined to request from this
Council today.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
10:24:32AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, Mr. Reddick.
Miss Mulhern?
10:24:35AM >>MARY MULHERN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I would support a continuance of this.
I don't think 60 days is enough.
I would maybe prefer to leave it open.
And I'm going -- the date when we could come back and look
at this again.
First I want to explain, I passed out to Council document
that I think everyone is on Council is quite familiar with.

But it's from 2011 when we were in the midst of considering
banning the street solicitation on the roadways.
And there was a group of volunteers who got together and
because of their experience in dealing with homeless and
issues, came up with a proposal for us.
And they weren't -- they start off right away saying that
they weren't against banning panhandling on the roadways.
But what they did want to see were real solutions to the
problem.
And I'm going to read some of what is in this report
because, first of all, everyone on this Council has been
incredibly compassionate and worked really hard on this
issue for as long as they've been on Council and most, you
know, all of us probably before we were even on Council.
Every single person here has done that.
But what we have been presented with, both when we passed
the panhandling ban on the roadways and today with thinks
ordinances, is creating -- it literally is making behavior
of people who are poor and homeless illegal.
People who have chosen or have been reduced to a
circumstance where they are living on the streets, what it
is doing is making what they're doing illegal.
What it is not doing is any of the things that so many of
you are talking about, whether you're in favor of this or
not.

I think most people are in favor of some kind of law that
will reduce the, you know, whatever aggressive panhandling
at the very least.
But what we would do today is not going to do anything about
the underlying problems.
I'm going to read to you some of the recommendations and
some of the analysis from two years ago before we were
pressured into passing that first panhandling ban and you
will see we haven't done any of these things.
I understand and I know Councilwoman Montelione has been
working very hard for two years with these various
committees and they're coming up with lots of ideas.
We have ideas.
We have examples.
We have no commitment to anything.
We don't have land.
Councilwoman Capin for three or four years has been saying,
where can we put a facility?
We haven't had an answer to that.
So, we have no commitment from the City of Tampa to do
anything other than arrest these people.
And I have to say, the most compassionate, the hardest
working people, like Officer McDonald and like the sheriff's
department officers, Officer Donaldson, or Sheriff Donaldson
and Sheriff Craiger, they're the ones, they know better than

me how, what life is like on the streets for these people
and what needs to be done.
But this gives them only a tool to arrest people.
It does not give them anywhere to take them, any services to
provide for them.
And I think -- I want to point out too that we talk a lot
about what Pinellas did and with Pinellas safe harbor, they
didn't criminalize panhandling and then look for a place to
build.
They had it all ready.
They had a facility and a commitment and the funding and had
figured out if we're going to pass this ban, we're going to
have to have a place to go.
So this perception that we have to ban it in order to do
something to help homeless people is just totally incorrect.
And actually, this strategy, we fell for this once already.
The Mayor said yes, we're going to do this.
We're going to look for places.
We're going to try to help the high pressure homeless.
We passed that panhandling ban.
We haven't literally haven't put any money in -- we have
yes, into long-term housing and the sorts of programs that
we were doing before.
But for the people that are on the street, we haven't made
any major changes or produced with sit -- some commitment of

land or money from the city, a place for these people to go.
So, that's why I can't support it.
But I want to read some of this, because this is what we
were asked to do two years ago before we passed the first
panhandling ban.
And let's thing about it.
In addition, a panhandling ban will do nothing to solve the
greater problems of economic disparity, mental health and
substance abuse.
There's a short window of time that the broader problem of
homelessness will be on the public radar.
What they were saying is, we'd better do something about
these bigger solutions before we pass a law.
And this is the window of time.
Well, we have another window of time now and I agree with
Councilman Reddick that we should make that longer and not
vote for this today.
Ideal time to explore an arrest aversion program for those
that violate the ordinance, panhandlers is now.
That was before we voted on it.
A single jail day costs us over $60 and unnecessary one day
hospitalization can cost over $600.
That sounds pretty low to me.
Furthermore, there are not adequate numbers of shelter beds
in the county and individual space of 30 day wait list for

temporary housing.
None of that has changed.
We believe that a similar alternative to arrest must be a
part of any street solicitation ordinance.
They're talking about what happened with Pinellas safe
harbor.
To decrease the expense to city resources on repetitive
incarceration.
In addition, the city of St. Petersburg allocated 426,000 to
social action funding in 2011.
The recognition of the city role in social services allows a
municipality to target and compete for numerous federal
grant opportunities that otherwise might go unnoticed.
So this is the argument that we have heard, that we
shouldn't be involved in social services.
Well, guess what?
Unless we get involved, we can't ask for the grants.
We can't even apply for federal or private grants that will
allow us to help these people.
Another question, where will we find a facility?
Month after month, we have heard from staff, there's
nowhere -- we have not been able to find a facility,
something like safe harbor.
Okay.
Here are the recommendations that this committee made two

years ago.
One, proceed forward with street solicitation.
I don't agree with that.
I think that we made a mistake because we had the
opportunity to say we are not going to vote for this unless
we have done these other things and here are the other
things too.
Create a task force that will assemble a committee of
partners.
I believe they did create a task force.
But they did not locate a facility, demonstrate a pathway to
funding, a one million dollars operating budget.
That hasn't happened.
Ask the task force to present this proposal to City Council
in 120 days.
That was over two years ago.
That didn't happen.
Set aside any funds obtained, and this is interesting -- set
aside any funds obtained in that 120-day period that are
derived from newly created permanent process for street
solicitation.
They were recommending getting a permit and so you would
have to pay a fee.
But I also would like to know what has been the cost of the,
to the city of the ban that we have already put in place on

the roadways.
And then five, their last recommendation is, link community
development block grant awards with obligate participation
in this arrest diversion program.
That participation should not be limited to or require a
financial contribution.
We're talking about it, I'm sure that Lisa's committee she
sits on has talked about a lot of this.
But none of this has been figured out.
We have a lot of agencies that are in flux right now.
We have got Metropolitan Ministries, Salvation Army with a
new person.
We have a new homeless coalition director.
There are all kinds of things in flux and all kinds of
conversations going on.
But I don't know who's there from the city and who can say
yes, we're going to go ahead and do this.
I think that at this point, we don't have a strategy.
We don't have a plan.
We don't have any property.
And we don't have a plan.
So, I'm not going to support this for that reason.
And I just want to say one other thing.
I feel that over all these years of my saying I cannot vote
in any way to tell people that they can't be charitable.

That's my personal faith and a difficult thing for me to do.
But my colleagues have done something more difficult in
trying to be compassionate and figure out a way to solve the
problem and so, I know that all these people who live
downtown and live in Tampa Heights and Ybor are
compassionate and do care about the homeless.
I'm never over mean to suggest that.
You faced these problems more than me, who maybe is downtown
three or four times a week having lunch or dinner or
something.
I know that you care.
And that you're compassionate.
And I know that my colleagues want to find a solution.
But I do not feel that we have that real big picture
solution delineated today.
So that anyone -- I'm asking my colleagues not to support
this.
And I'm supporting Councilman Reddick and continuing it.
And I'm just not sure that in 60 days they can come back to
us with the real solution that people can get behind.
But, we could always continue that after that too.
Thank you.
10:35:32AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Capin?
10:35:33AM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.
Yes, there were lots of issues brought up and yes, we have

been on this Council making suggestions, trying to move this
forward where we can find some kind of safe, if you will,
safe harbor for these people.
One of the things that was brought out was housing first.
And I did attend their meeting.
What they have done is -- what they're working on is chronic
homeless.
And the number of chronic homeless was identified as 700.
These are people that have mental illness and drug abuse and
alcoholism as a mental illness.
And out of the 700 is more than a quarter of the total of
homeless in the city.
Now, it took about a year to put together the first housing
for 24 units, out of 700.
It is a popular plan.
Nationwide.
But I've seen many popular plans nationwide for many
different things.
One that I can remember is that urban renewal.
But this seems to be working -- it has the, it has the, not
only the housing, but it has the workforce, the staff to
keep these people -- these people need a lot of support.
And that goes along with the housing.
Just not a house.
It actually does.

So that part of it is, but that is more of a long-term.
What we're dealing with today is an immediate.
Where are these people going to go during the day?
Where are they going to go during the day?
If you have to find them a bed, but during the day, they're
still homeless.
We have been -- one of the things that was brought to my
attention was, in Miami, there was a court case, Pottinger
versus the city of Miami.
Settlement agreement came February 2009.
What they did, they set aside areas in the city of Miami
where people that were homeless or homeless, and they
supplied restrooms and made sure that, because they were in
that area, they could find them, they could help them.
They were all in one area, or two.
But this -- it was a settlement and what they found was
that -- let me see here.
That people could not be arrested if they were in these
areas.
They could not -- here it is.
They could not be arrested for life sustaining conduct.
Now, to carry on daily necessities of life, which included
nudity, such as bathing or responding to the call of nature.
So they provided for them to be able to be in an area and
have these, have these facilities brought to them.

That was the settlement from Pottinger versus the city of
Miami, 2009.
We have Ms. Barcus who came to us from that area and that
was never brought up.
And I would've like to hear her, her, you know, summation of
that, of that settlement that took place in the city of
Miami.
Here Council again, as several Councilmembers have noted and
we have said we have all been working on this for years.
And we brought up reasonable options when the city
government took up -- when the county, the city and county
took up the task and originated the citizens and government
group to offer first housing, City Council was not informed
of this.
Even though we requested it.
So what I'm getting at is that we are here grappling with
this.
And I'm going to have a quote from our Mayor that was
printed as a headline.
And this was 2012.
February 2012.
When he was asked about this chronic situation that we have
in our city.
And he says, you cannot solve -- this is in reference to
City Council.

You cannot solve it in 30 minutes every other Thursday, he
says, taking a swipe at City Council complaints about the
city's approach on homelessness.
But here we are being asked to pass a very sweeping
ordinance.
But we can't solve it every 30 minutes.
I agree with Councilman Reddick about continuing it.
This back in 2011, this, all of this was brought up in, when
we were looking at the panhandling.
Excuse me.
There's a few more things here.
Again, here we are doing the heavy lifting, if you will, and
it comes to us as if it were an immediate crises.
If it were an immediate crises, the administration has been
in place for two years.
And we are hearing today that there's a conference call
today, and then pointed out things that the city is doing
and has been doing.
And with HUD I guess was the conference call.
And that it was sort of a voucher, like a section 8.
Well, section 8 follows the vouchers.
Section eight is something that we should have more of,
because it is market priced renting -- rentals.
Because low income, or when you try to rent housing at a
very low price, you cannot maintain the properties.

That's where section 8 comes in.
Because it is market driven pricing.
But section 8 follows those.
And if the tenant destroys anything in those properties,
they used to be responsible to have to fix it.
Now, they are taken out of section eight.
So there's a lot of responsibility.
And yes, we all have responsibility.
The only people that are not responsible for their actions
are the mentally ill and children.
All of us are held to be responsible.
And therefore, I would vote for continuance.
But I would like to see it longer than 60 days.
I think this is, this needs a lot of attention.
10:43:38AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Let me ask the police department.
They're here.
You've heard the things that have been presented here today.
And I like clarity.
10:43:49AM >> What was your question, sir?
10:43:50AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I said you've heard of the things that
were brought here today.
I'd like to have clarity on all of them.
There were statements that were put on the record saying
that there's immediate going to jail this is no
consultation, asking the individuals what their rights are,

and what the system is and what you have and where you can
go and where you can't go.
But from what I understand, from what I heard from the
police department sometime back was if I recall, that there
was a process where you would ask them where they, and tell
them where the rights were to have the benefit, for those in
need, to go to.
And if there were beds available and if there was, what was
available for them at the time, that the police department
approached and spoke to the individuals.
10:44:39AM >> That's correct.
Marc Hamlin on behalf of the police department.
The timeframe extending its, really in our opinion is a
nonissue, because if the social services aren't in place for
that day, the ordinance is not enforceable to make an
arrest.
So, if we have beds, we could ask them to go to beds.
If we don't have beds, we can't do that.
The Salvation Army issue, sir, I don't believe giving them
60 days is going to change anything as far as the ordinance
is concerned.
Another thing too is our homeless population is small,
smaller in the summer than it is in the wintertime.
So, if, we have training scheduled.
We have 130 officers going through training from the

homeless coalition, to let them know what the options are.
Let them know the terminology, let them know what the
definition also are of chronic homeless and to put them
through programs that the home less coalition, and you can
get that from them as well, exactly what they are.
So if we don't have these social services in order, the
ordinance, we can't arrest.
So that's really a nonissue in our opinion.
We think we are ready to go with the training and with the
ordinance.
10:45:42AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay.
Let me continue, if I may.
So then you have, if there's available and they want to make
a move to help themselves, then what happens?
10:45:59AM >> I'm sorry.
10:46:00AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
If there's availability for beds and
availability for whatever programs you're going to point
these individuals to, and they refuse to go, then what
happens?
10:46:09AM >> Then we're dealing with a different ordinances like the
storage issue, if they don't --
10:46:14AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Excuse me.
Tell me about the storage of personal property.
That was mentioned also.
10:46:21AM >> We have an option right now with free day time storage at

the homeless recovery.
I think Councilman Reddick mentioned that the Salvation Army
is also wanting to get on board in the future about having
the secured storage.
So, if there's no storage availability there, then the
ordinance we can't make an arrest.
We have to have options.
It's when the people refuse the options that are available,
is when the arrest options come in to play.
10:46:50AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And that happens in the first time, the
second time?
10:46:52AM >> No, you have asked for extensions to third time.
10:46:56AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
So then those individuals are given the
opportunity to go whatever is available -- if I remember
what happened here three or four weeks ago.
10:47:05AM >> That's correct.
10:47:06AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And you know, I also been here for two
years.
So maybe it's my fault we haven't done anything.
But I don't think it's anyone's fault.
I think it's the system that we're working with and I think
it's the progress that we're making.
And this is a chance for all those individuals to be given
an opportunity, it was mentioned earlier, that no one knows
where these places are for help.

You just said, captain, that you're giving them the
direction of where the help is, if it's available.
If it's not available, from what you just stated, there is
no arrest.
Am I correct?
10:47:41AM >> Correct.
10:47:42AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much, sir.
I'm sorry, I think I had Ms. Mulhern, Ms. Montelione,
Ms. Capin.
10:47:51AM >>MARY MULHERN:
Thank you.
I just wanted to say couple things briefly.
Our homeless count, I believe it's for Tampa Bay.
I'm not sure if it's Hillsborough County or it's
Hillsborough and Pinellas.
But our homeless count is somewhere -- we're not sure,
right?
Between 8,000 and 17,000.
So, we know that we do not have enough beds for everyone.
So, I don't think -- and I've also heard from, there are
people who don't have the money to go to Salvation Army, if
that's an option.
I know that mental health care doesn't necessarily take
people who are brought there from the hospital.
There is a difficulty I think, and you're not -- I know
you're not questioning that.

There may not be enough beds, that's correct, right?
10:48:45AM >> Good morning, Council.
Officer Daniel McDonald from the Tampa police.
Just to address the bed issue, most nights, except for the
coldest nights of the winter, we have a net surplus of
available beds.
Salvation Army is currently running about 35 to 40 beds free
every night.
If we were to basically arrest every single homeless person
at the same time, which is not practical and won't happen,
then we would have a bed issue.
But, for the possible handful of ordinance violators that we
may get on a daily basis, then we have plenty of beds
available.
I believe that the plan is that we will pay for that bed
space after that free five days, because they still are
entitled to five days at the Salvation Army for free.
So, I've looked at the bed space issue, we don't want to go
ahead with this if not enough bed space available.
I don't think there will be.
10:49:47AM >>MARY MULHERN:
This is another question because we talked
about the beds.
But part of the problem that you're trying to address may be
more in the day time, when people are more concerned about
there being people on the street.

Where is there for them to go?
10:50:04AM >> There is already an existing dropping center.
It's called the shop.
6220 north Nebraska.
And they have laundry facilities, computers, telephones,
mental health screenings.
And that's open I believe from 7:00 a.m. till 4:00 p.m.
10:50:23AM >>MARY MULHERN:
How many people -- how many chairs are there
there, I guess?
How many seats are there for people there?
10:50:29AM >> I'd say it's about the size of this room.
Maybe a little bigger.
So they can accommodate probably a hundred people.
They also offer advanced service.
It's up on Hanna and Nebraska.
So they will shuttle folks back and forth on a periodic
basis.
It will be nice to have obviously more facilities.
But for right now, there are they are in existence.
I also have talked to them and they've agreed to take
ordinance violators, at least give them a place to go in
lieu of going to jail.
Because once again, we don't want to make an arrest if we
can divert them towards severances.
10:51:07AM >>MARY MULHERN:
So that's a drop in center.

So normally just for people who elect to go there, not
people who are brought there?
10:51:13AM >> Correct.
It's voluntary right now.
But in the case of an ordinance violation, that would be an
option for, during the day time.
If we encounter someone sleeping at 10:00 in the morning,
that's probably a little too early to be offering a bed for
the night.
We could take them there.
We may have shelter space available during the day time.
We're working on that.
But, there are options, if they can go and work on their
housing issues, with different providers, and there's a lot
of stuff they can accomplish during the day time.
But to address the main concern of where to go during the
day time, the shop is currently in operation.
It's open right now.
10:51:59AM >>MARY MULHERN:
Okay.
Thank you.
I don't know, I don't know if -- doesn't look like
Ms. Barcus is here from the homeless coalition.
It would be nice to hear from her.
I just wanted to say something.
I don't even know how hard people have worked on this

Council on this issue, but I did find out just yesterday
that Councilman Cohen has spent probably a full workweek
driving around looking for temporary shelter opportunities,
possible places where we can house people.
So I know that, you know, my colleagues are just working
really, really hard on this.
I want everyone to know that because I had no idea how hard
Councilman Cohen had been working on this issue.
I want everyone to know that we are trying to find solutions
here on Council.
And our police department, thank you so much.
10:52:57AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have Ms. Montelione, Ms. Capin and
Mr. Cohen.
10:53:03AM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The report that I referenced earlier has approximately 19
pages of recommendations.
And the recommendations are across the board, they don't all
deal with housing.
But the reasons and addressing the issues that create the
situation where someone finds themselves homeless.
The experts, their biographies, there were no less than 25
people from around the country who contributed to these
studies and reports.
They all point to the, to not having a facility that's
warehousing people.

And when you talk about looking for when and having a large
facility, that's not the direction that, and the goal that
has been decided upon by all of these people, after
listening to the experts, wading through the reports,
looking at the research, studying models in other parts of
the country, the goal and the direction we're going in is to
provide permanent housing.
So, everyone who goes in a different direction and doesn't
contribute to the 19 or 20 pages of recommendations,
including, as I mentioned before, release programs from
hospitals.
Release programs from incarceration.
Treating the folks who have dual diagnosis.
Many of the programs that exist today, and some of it's a
resultant of funding, they cannot accept people who are,
have drugs or have records, or have mental health issues.
Well, if you don't have a drug problem and alcohol problem
and a mental health issue, you're probably not homeless.
So, those are some of the fundamental things that we need to
work on.
And it's looking at a comprehensive approach.
And there are many.
There are many suggestions.
And I wanted to clarify the numbers.
And this is off the homeless coalition's web site.

The reason why the numbers, Ms. Mulhern, all due respect,
were 8,000 to 17,000, because that's followed the revised
definition of homeless that came from HUD.
And that was including people who were doubling up, living
with relatives or were living in a situation that was not
their first choice and they had no, no other place to go but
to double up and live with someone else.
The count of literally homeless people in Hillsborough
County, on the web site of the homeless coalition, is
2,275 -- 2,275.
944 were living on the streets or in other places not meant
for human habitation.
387 were residing in emergency shelters.
578 were residing in transitional housing.
And 366 were reported in jail having been homeless prior to
their incarceration.
Those are the numbers.
So, when we throw out 8 to 17,000, that is really
misleading.
That's not literally homeless.
That includes people doubling up in situations with
relatives and friends.
And you know, to the quote that Ms. Capin mentioned from the
Mayor, you know, it was off the cuff.
It was offhanded.

The Mayor is a straight shooting, straight speaking kind of
guy.
And he did say that.
But I'll give you a quote from myself.
It's in my newsletter, so it is part of the public realm.
Addressing the reasons that lead to becoming homeless and
the effort to break the cycle of chronic homelessness takes
more than just a couple of ordinances or a discussion by
Councilmembers from time to time.
That's a quote from myself.
And as Ms. Mulhern pointed out, we are all working very hard
in our own ways, on our own time and reaching out to our own
networks to try and help.
All of us are.
And Councilman Miranda, Chair Miranda is correct.
It is no one person's fault.
We do have a plan.
And although it hasn't been published in a document as a
position paper, the City of Tampa does have a plan.
And we are working towards the goals that were set by all of
these folks who have been working on all of these
coordinated efforts to provide those elements that are
needed to fulfill the plan.
And Officer McDonald mentioned some of those things that are
a result of the city's commitment and part of the plan.

And Councilman Reddick, the Salvation Army has been a part
of these discussions.
And because he's just here three weeks, he hasn't had the
opportunity to attend the meeting because three weeks ago,
the coordinator passed away.
And there's been a little bit of a break from the regular
meeting schedule because he died very suddenly.
Unexpectedly overnight.
So, when the meetings resume, he'll be there.
So, they have been part of the discussions and there are
other facilities.
The pastor -- pastor Tom Atchison, who is a local hero and
one of those awards from the Tampa Bay Lightning, he is with
New Beginnings.
He has reached out and had discussions with Officer McDonald
to also provide daytime services.
It's something that's being worked on.
It's something that takes a long time to set up, to assemble
the funding, to get the space.
There's, as he mentioned, the shop, the drop-in center.
There's the, trying to talk to the Methodist church, who
recently purchased the old Methodist church site over on
Florida and Harrison.
There are a lot of positive things coming.
And it pains me to see the conversation going in a negative

direction.
I'm working with a house representative from Pinellas
County.
I mean, there are a lot of people who are working and doing
very positive things.
And I really want the discussion to talk about what we are
doing.
And not focusing on what we aren't doing.
So, Ms. Kert, can we add the Salvation Army to this
ordinance?
I don't believe we can call out a specific agency within the
ordinance to provide services, unless there's some sort of
contractual agreement?
11:00:45AM >>REBECCA KERT:
Putting in the ordinance any specific
organization would not be the appropriate way to do it.
But I -- if you just want me to answer that question, I'll
sit down.
11:00:57AM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, that is the question.
I mean, you say not the appropriate way.
What would be the appropriate way?
11:01:05AM >>REBECCA KERT:
Well, maybe I can take a step back because I
give a very brief introduction today because we talked so
extensively at first reading.
I do get troubled when there are comments that this
ordinance in particular is criminalizing homelessness

because its intent was not to do that.
It was specifically structured not to do that and legally we
cannot do that.
And the original request is it was brought forward, was not
to criminalize homeless or to make homeless people
uncomfortable so they leave.
The original request was that the Tampa Police Department
had been working for approximately a year and a half, maybe
longer at this point, to try to reach out to the homeless
population that they could, and offer them services.
And what they found, where they could and people were
receptive to that, it was effective.
But that as we spoken at length at one or two prior
meetings, there is a group of chronic homeless people and as
you all have said, I know you all know this and have done a
lot of research, but there's a lot of new people in the
audience, so I'm going to briefly repeat some of this.
Probably through no fault of their own, mental health issues
or addictions, there are people not receptive to receiving
services and getting off the streets.
I think everyone would agree, we do not want to criminalize
homeless, but yet it would be wonderful the there was a way
there weren't any homeless people.
Not because we don't like the homelessness.
But because that's not a good safe lifestyle for people.

And the original tool was a request to give the police
department a tool for those people who do not want to
receive services, to encourage them to do that.
And so, in looking what some of our neighboring
jurisdictions did, as well as across the country, we came up
with a few regulations prohibiting camping in public places,
which you will recall is not just sleeping, but sleeping
plus something else, like a tent or other lifestyle issues.
Sleeping in the right-of-way.
Storage on public property and public urination and
defecation.
And the camping, sleeping and storage ordinances all
specifically state that they cannot be enforceable, no one
will go to jail, no one will receive a notice to appear
unless we are able to offer them an alternative.
And Ms. Capin is always very, very well informed.
She did mention the Pottinger case out of Miami.
There was a settlement agreement reached.
The ordinances that we wrote, I'm not sure it's universally
accepted, but you cannot criminalize this behavior if you
don't offer alternatives.
But I think the major public policy decisions as well as
legally is certainly within the state of Florida, we have
accepted that if you criminalize some of those behaviors,
they're so intertwined with the concept of being homeless,

that you are criminalizing the status of being homeless.
And that violates someone's eighth amendment right.
In short order, the court found that that was cruel and
unusual punishment.
And these ordinances were all written with that in mind.
Now, I'm not sure exactly all the details of the settlement
agreement.
I do know I've read from the paper lately that Miami is
looking to go back and modify some of the detail also of it.
And I'm not sure exactly what details they found difficult.
But think everyone is in agreement with the underlying
concept that we need to provide alternatives.
You know, as far as the St. Pete model and what they have
done over in St. Pete, I know philosophical, some people
agree with that model and some people do not.
Regardless, St. Pete did have some ordinances on the books
before they had the shelter space available.
And they did not enforce it until they did, in recognition
of what I was speak about, about criminalizing homelessness.
That's not the appropriate legally or public policy way to
move forward.
So, as far as the short question about the Salvation Army, I
think that you've heard from the police department and I
think some of you all individually are doing this and I'm
sure the administration is doing this as well.

But they are looking for the alternatives that the ordinance
already requires.
And working with the Salvation Army and continuing to do
that, we may come up with more different, better
alternatives to offer people.
But unless we have this alternatives in place by the terms
of the ordinance, it's not enforceable.
And in some circumstances, I know you've been told, please
rely on good faith on the police department and all the
credibility that they've built up.
And they have.
But in this case, it is in the terms of the ordinance
itself.
And -- that was a long answer.
11:05:52AM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
And although Ms. Barcus is not here today, she stated on the
record when she was here last time that she was in support
of the ordinances in order to get the chronic homeless to a
place where they can begin to turn around their lives and
added that we desperately need funding for additional
programs.
Thank you.
11:06:16AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.
Ms. Capin?

11:06:19AM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
In reference to looking for properties for a
year and being month after month being told there was no
report, it was not necessarily for a large location.
That's just insinuated.
But it was for any location of any size.
As Ms. Barcus stated, they desperately need bridge housing.
And that's what we're talking about here today, is bridge
housing.
Shelter.
Where are they going to go between -- and we all agree that
living in the park is not safe.
It's not a safe or healthy way for people to live.
I think that everyone in here is in agreement.
When I mentioned the 700 chronic homeless and that there
were 24 apartments where they were moved in, that leaves 675
chronic.
And those are the mentally ill because we all -- we have
classified drug addiction and alcoholism is also part of
that.
So when the officer was asked, when you were asked -- will
you come up, please?
By Mr. Miranda about when you asked them to come to shelter,
and they refuse, what is the next step?
11:07:52AM >> First encounter or second encounter?
11:07:55AM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
First, second, third.

11:07:56AM >> Well, you explain to them at some point in time that if
they don't do this, they're going to get arrested.
And you'll be surprised how many people will go.
And that's what the whole thing is.
We don't want to arrest our way out of this problem.
And it's really, I think we're focusing on big numbers.
675, well, it's really a case-by-case basis.
One at a time.
We try to help one at a time.
And if we can get that one person fixed -- one person gets
saved, I think it's really a success.
That sound trivial possibly to you.
But that's the idea.
It's the canvas alternative to put a little muscle behind
what we're saying and get them some help.
I think you'll be surprised how many people would get help
rather than go to jail.
11:08:44AM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I was just wondering, because maybe with the
drug addiction, but the truly mentally ill logic does not
work into that scenario, as everyone knows.
That's why they're deemed mentally ill.
11:09:00AM >> I think when we get to the long-term part of it, they're
going to have to want to get better.
You can't help yourself unless you want to.
But I think we giver them a little push, get them into the

system.
11:09:11AM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Mentally ill, always I said, they and
children are not responsible.
So, if they want to is not part of that scenario.
Not for the mentally ill and not for children.
The other thing is that, you're looking at a grant for more,
to be able to put more police officers to help with this.
We have a force of a thousand police officers.
And why do we have to find a grant?
11:09:47AM >> This isn't our grant.
This is by the housing authority.
So the choice neighborhood grant, Encore project in Central
Park.
They have built in to that grant request to fund one officer
to strictly work with this issue around that Encore project.
11:10:01AM >> So would be a new officer?
11:10:03AM >> It's possible, yes.
The grant is not going -- they're not going to know if they
got the grant till September.
And they will have to sit down.
-- we participated with the numbers.
Let me get back to the first part of your question.
You're absolutely right.
There's almost a thousand police officers.
The reason we have been able to successfully drive down

crime is because not one unit did it.
Everybody does it.
We do it in a community policing philosophy.
We don't have a community policing unit.
We have a community policing philosophy.
We're going to start off training 134 officers that work in
the downtown Ybor City area for this ordinance, with the
homeless coalition.
And then we'll expand on that.
And work through -- everybody has to participate in this for
this to be successful.
It's not just going to be a unit of homeless liaisons like
Officer McDonald going around doing this.
Everybody is going to do this, 24/7.
11:10:56AM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
All right.
The other part was that maybe we could -- I write notes all
over the place here when I'm listening.
This is for Rebecca Kert.
Thank you very much.
And I know, I've ridden with Officer McDonald and
participated in many of the Tampa police initiatives.
11:11:26AM >> Thank you for doing that and supporting us.
11:11:29AM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I appreciate very much what you all do.
Ms. Kert, on here I can't -- I don't find it on the, on the
revised ordinance, but has it been taken out?

What is the area that an officer can take a person to a
shelter?
Is it within the city limits?
11:11:57AM >>REBECCA KERT:
Go it is not within the city limits, then
the city has to be able to commit to provide resources to
bring that person from the shelter back to city services
that they may need.
So, there is a built-in incentive that the shelter space be
local.
Because if not, we're going to be responsible for shuttling
someone back and forth.
11:12:19AM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
What is the mileage they can take them
outside the city?
I thought I saw three miles before.
Three miles outside the city radius.
11:12:30AM >>REBECCA KERT:
I'm sorry, I'm trying to find that question.
In the section relating to sleeping in and on the rights of
way.
Shelter space is available at the shelter within the city or
within three miles of the borders of the city.
And if the shelter space is outside the borders of the city,
public or other transportation shall be made available to
the individual at the shelter space so the individual can
travel to locations within the city which are necessary to
the individual.

11:13:04AM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Okay.
That part, and that's why we need to continue this.
Because three miles outside of the city limits is Pinellas
County.
And safe harbor.
So, they can -- and that was told to me when I did the drive
with Mr. McDonald, that they could take them there.
Sid well, what if they refuse or they -- you would find out
first before we drove them to Pinellas.
But three miles will take them out to Pinellas County.
And the part where it says that you have to provide public
transportation, like a bus like voucher, really, for these
people, what you could be doing is leaving them in Pinellas
County, because if they don't use that voucher, that's what
we have done.
So three miles -- because I asked, well, what if they
refused to take them?
Or something happens that the beds were filled?
They said, well, we have to bring them back.
But that's not what the ordinance says.
It doesn't say that our police officers have to bring them
back.
It says they can -- they offer them public transportation.
And therein lies the issue with being, you know, we could
very well take them and leave them there.

And as -- but thank you for clarifying the three miles and
what it entails.
The other part entails.
Again, housing first is a long-term well established by 25
eminent scholars and studies and that's understood.
But it's still a long-term.
And we're talking very short-term.
I also -- I did vote to bring this to second reading.
I did, because nature in the parks is not where people
should liver.
And I felt like other Councilmembers that if we pass this,
we would have -- it would force the issue more.
But what happened, the experience with the panhandling
ordinance and here we are two years later, it was said then
that maybe that would push the issue.
And there would be more -- and there is.
Since then, you do have the housing first come through.
But we don't have the bridge housing.
We don't have those things in place.
The part of the ordinance where if they can't find shelter,
they can't -- they can't arrest them or they have to leave
them where they're at.
But there is an issue with them being taken three miles
outside of the city limits.
Because you could take them to, to the county and give them

a bus voucher and that's it.
And so, what we have done is dropped them off.
And so, for that reason, I again will say that -- I want to
say that Councilman Reddick brought up continuing this.
I think that alone has reason to be looked at.
Also, that I'd like to offer a compromise to that, that
there is a timeline for continuance, be it 60 days, whatever
days it is.
But that when the ordinance comes through, it is sunsetted
at a certain time.
Because at that point, if this Council deems to bring it
back, they may.
But I would recommend a sunset to that ordinance.
For the purpose of, not to study it, not to have them come
back and report on it.
To actually stop it and at that point, Council can decide if
they want to continue it and see what has been, what has
taken place.
So that is the compromise I would recommend.
And that's it for me, for now.
Thank you.
11:17:35AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.
Mr. Cohen?
11:17:38AM >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I think that anyone listening to this discussion can tell

that all of the Councilmembers have spent a great deal of
time and energy giving thought to this very difficult
problem.
And I really appreciate Councilwoman Mulhern's comments,
because the truth is, is that at times we do disagree with
one another on what the best road forward is on these
issues.
And those disagreements I believe are really rooted in
principle and in belief about what is the best way forward.
To me, this is all about balance.
It's about balancing the rights of people who unfortunately
are forced to sleep in parks because they have nowhere else
to go.
With the people who want to enjoy the parks and use the
parks for recreation and for the types of activities that
they were intended for.
And throughout this entire process, it's constantly been a
discussion between people who feel threatened or intimidated
or somehow impacted versus, you know, those that are, that
are devoid of a lot of options.
And what, what has been impressive to me about the way that
this ordinance has been constructed is that it, in my view,
gives the police department humane, thoughtful tools to try
to fill beds that right now are going unused and are sitting
empty.

And as I listen to the comments here, the one thing that I
think really mitigates against a lot of the concerns that
have been raised is the inability of the city and the, the
language on the face of the ordinance prohibiting the city
from enforcing the ordinance without alternatives.
Councilwoman Capin a minute ago mentioned the idea that
perhaps bypassing an ordinance like this, it would actually
be the impetus to creating more services.
And certainly that is the hope of those of us that are in
support of this.
You know, Councilwoman Montelione, I think did a very good
job of pretty much summarizing why I would be in favor of
going forward with this, this ordinance.
The one area that I think we might disagree is, she's
certainly I think committed to a permanent housing solution
philosophy.
I tend to feel that all options ought to be on the table and
my visits to Pinellas safe harbor and Pinellas hope,
reinforced for me that sometimes what a person needs when
they are leaving a homeless situation, is just an
opportunity to go somewhere for a temporary period of time
and just get themselves organized and get themselves
together and have sort of a time out where they can collect
themselves and get cleaned up and know that their property
is safely stored and in a safe place.

So, it's for that reason that I feel comfortable moving
forward with this.
I listened to what Councilman Reddick said regarding the
continuance and the issues with the Salvation Army.
And my view at this point is that because of the way the
ordinance is constructed, any -- anything that the Salvation
Army can do additional, and it sounds as though there may be
some things they can and are willing to do, it sounds like
those things will complement the ordinance rather than
detract from it.
So right now, my view is that we should move forward.
Thank you.
11:21:43AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.
Any outs Councilmember who has not spoken first of all?
All right.
We go to Miss Mulhern.
11:21:50AM >>MARY MULHERN:
Thank you.
I just wanted to say that, I've got a couple cliches.
One is, we're putting the cart before the horse.
We're creating a law that's supposed to be a solution law,
but we don't have the place for these people to go.
As Councilman Cohen just mentioned, he's visited safe harbor
and Pinellas hope, which are two different approaches, but
they're both for the bridge housing or temporary housing
that we have been talking about, which is really the issue.

The population that we're trying to deal with are those
people.
And we don't have that, unless -- I mean, Councilwoman
Montelione talked about a plan.
But we haven't seen a plan.
If there is a plan for a place, I'm not talking about a
strategy.
I'm talking about a place.
Do we have a plan for either a place for people to go during
the day, for, for services that are not available now?
A plan for a place in the City of Tampa since this is the
City of Tampa ordinance, or ordinances that we're talking
about?
This is my question for Mr. Snelling.
What's the plan?
Why should we pass a Lou if we don't have anywhere for the
people to go?
11:23:21AM >>THOM SNELLING:
I think this ordinance is part of that
plan.
I don't have -- we have the action plan, we have various
strategies that we're using to continue to spend our limited
resources and how we spend those resources.
For emergency shelter, for extremely affordable housing, for
various things that we have done in the past and will
continue to do, that's the plan going forward with some of

those uses.
Spending upwards of a million dollars of those types of
funds for a variety of different kinds of homelessness
services.
In terms of do we have a plan for a specific facility that's
out there that says we're going to go to this piece of
property at this location with bridge housing and a homeless
warehouse?
We don't have that.
In answer -- in that very limiting context.
But that view is -- it's equating having a plan with a
single facility is myopic.
You need to continue to have and do everything that we're
doing and have additional things come forward.
11:24:27AM >>MARY MULHERN:
That's my question.
I never said we need one place.
No one on this council said that.
What are the new places, new places, whether they're going
to be city provided, whether they're going to be provided by
other agencies -- where are they?
11:24:47AM >> Well, our plan is to continue to work with Marie Barcus
and the homeless coalition.
That agency has nor energy wand more forward thinking
progress than it has in a decade.
She he's taken the lead in a number of ways.

Quite frankly, she is the expert in this type of activity.
For me to insert myself or to insert the city in front of
her and try to work, you know --
11:25:11AM >>MARY MULHERN:
I'm not asking to you do that and if you are
asking for her endorsement and her to provide that, she's
not here today.
11:25:19AM >> I'm not asking for her endorsement.
11:25:22AM >>MARY MULHERN:
Well, we don't have that from her.
We don't know what that plan is either.
So that's what I'm saying.
11:25:32AM >>THOM SNELLING:
I suggest you ask her to come here and to
deliver, you know, what she's working on and what she
thinks, ask her to have that.
Because I don't know.
I can't speculate exactly the finer details of what she's
been working on.
11:25:45AM >>MARY MULHERN:
Well, let me ask you this.
It sounds like we're going to vote on this.
But if we were to consider a continuance, when could you
come back with some concrete places?
11:26:01AM >>THOM SNELLING:
I can't answer that right now,
Councilwoman.
Put a time, two weeks, three weeks, one week.
I don't know what I'm going to hear in this conference call
this afternoon with HUD.

They may have a silver bullet or magic bullet that's going
to say Thom, do this.
I can't put a timeframe on that.
11:26:18AM >>MARY MULHERN:
Okay.
Thanks.
11:26:19AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Reddick?
11:26:20AM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Captain, let me ask you one question.
And then at this point, chair, I'm going to call for the
questions, because I'd like to entertain a motion.
You stated that 134 officers being trained, currently being
trained.
11:26:36AM >> No, we start in a couple weeks.
We should be done by the first week of August.
These are the officers that are assigned to the downtown
Ybor area, patrol officers and our rock officers, the
plainclothes officers.
That's going to be the first part of the training, with the
homeless coalition.
And to go through the programs that the homeless coalition
has, 500 first homes I think it's called.
They're going to go through the federal term notch.
They're going to learn how to over the chronically homeless.
And then we'll expand it from there.
11:27:10AM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.

Mr. Chair -- I'm sorry.
I move to close.
11:27:20AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We can't.
We haven't heard from the public yet.
I'd like to get to that point sooner than later.
11:27:31AM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Call for the question.
11:27:33AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Well, I don't have -- our attorney's out.
But I got to hear from the public.
11:27:39AM >>FRANK REDDICK:
I agree.
11:27:51AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Just a second.
There's been some discussion, Mr. Counselor, regarding call
for collection and so forth.
But I haven't heard from the public yet.
I'd like to get the public comment on the record before
that's done.
11:28:10AM >> There was a call for the question?
11:28:12AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
There is no question.
What I want to do is listen to the public if I may.
Is that all right with the Council?
All right.
Anyone in the public care to speak on item number 60?
Come forward please.
Well, they've spoken on 59.
Yes, ma'am?
11:28:30AM >> Good morning.

I'm Yvette Acosta MacMillan.
I'm a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties
Union.
And most of the points that I wanted to make have been made
by the various members of the Council.
But I would state that no matter how you want to call this
ordinance by any other name, it is criminalizing
homelessness.
That is the ultimate effect of this ordinance.
I would urge you, request that you do not pass this
ordinance.
There are several provisions in the ordinance that are very
disconcerting.
For example, requiring homeless people to have IDs.
Homeless people don't have IDs.
It costs money to get an ID.
If they don't have an ID, they can get arrested.
The city should look into providing safe areas where
homeless people are welcomed, can be provided services, can
be provided primary elementary necessities.
One of the -- one of the issues that was stated by the
police officers was that if the social service also aren't
in place, they can't arrest.
But if the social services aren't in place, you're not
solving the problem.

What's the purpose of having an ordinance with no teeth in
it anyway?
It doesn't solve the problem.
Assuming that homelessness is a problem, which is a whole
other issue.
They're training more law enforcement officers.
At some point, it's been offered that there are sufficient
beds to take homeless people.
Well, that's because right now, there's only a couple of
officers who are dealing directly with the homeless people.
Once there are more officers that are trained, there's going
to be a lot more people that are going to be transported to
these beds.
The city should make sure that there are places for all
these people before they start transporting or wanting to
transport these people.
Otherwise, again, what is the purpose of the ordinance?
And I don't usually quote my husband.
But, he stated something last night, he said that
criminalizing homelessness is like blaming poverty on the
poor or blaming the wars on the soldiers.
It should not be a crime to be homeless.
What they need is your help.
Thank you.
11:31:17AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Next please?
Next please?
[ Applause ]
11:31:22AM >> Mike Doyle, saint Vincent DePaul, sacred heart church.
First of all, I want to thank the Council chair,
Councilmembers for their very thoughtful and compassionate
work.
It's obvious and I hope my remarks are viewed as positive
and helpful.
A reminder that any enforcement ends up in our lap.
So, we get the end result of anything that you enforce.
So, if there's a fine, whatever, we get to deal with that
product.
So, rather than help nearly homeless, we're spending very,
very scarce resources and play donations, I mentioned sacred
heart, on rebuilding that homeless person.
The two models that I referenced that you've been talking
about, I want to make a very clear distinction.
Safe harbor is chronically homeless.
Absolutely chronically homeless.
Pinellas hope is temporary shelter for those people and
that's a focus of mine personally with case management on
those people that are nearly homeless, especially women and
children, to get them stabilized with a triage of services.
So, to me, that's very important.

I too toured both facilities.
And I talked to an officer, security officer at Pinellas
safe harbor and I said, if you could make one improvement,
what would it be?
And he said are you aware of family justice center?
One stop shopping.
It's pointless to shelter if you don't have options on-site
without transportation issues to deal with.
So, whatever model or hybrid you come up with in your
deliberations, you must have an array of services on-site to
work with these people.
Commissioner Reddick, you mentioned transportation, storing
possessions.
Great suggestion.
But, picked up a homeless person that called in to our help
line yesterday out in front of the library on Ashley.
Brought him something to eat.
Gave him my last three bus passes.
Took him to Marion street station.
So he could go to our thrift store, get some clothing.
Gave him a voucher.
And he said, I'm from Ft. Myers.
I'm very anxious to work.
I understand that I can sell newspapers and earn a living.
If you store at Salvation Army, you have to provide a way of

transportation.
At both facilities that I mentioned, in the case of Pinellas
safe harbor, there are storage tubs with their name on it.
The same exists at the Catholic charities.
Thank you.
11:34:09AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Next please?
11:34:18AM >> Good morning.
My name is Ruben Cornejo.
I live at 805 West Amelia Avenue in the Ridgewood Park
neighborhood.
Just about a block north of where I live, at the corner of
Columbus and North Boulevard, there are two properties that
are a huge problem for our neighborhood.
One of them has already been condemned, yet there's 24/7
folks that live just outside the fence.
On the southwest side, there's, the corner of Columbus and
North Boulevard, there's an organization that basically has
the building is shut, never seen any doors open.
But Every now and then they open it to hand out food to the
homeless.
But they don't invite them in.
They just pass out the food.
I don't see any garbage cans anywhere.
So what are these people supposed to do when everyone is

done eat? They don't offer any other solutions but to give
them some food and then we are left with the litter.
At the south end of the neighborhood, there's a park on
Glenwood, linear park, they're going to station a private
club there is called crusade.
The surrounding areas are hang out for homeless people.
Yet when they need somewhere to go to shelter themselves
from the environment, they seek out the empty properties in
our neighborhood, which there are several.
And we feel like we are, we're trying to create a healthy
environment in our neighborhood.
And I feel that kicking this down the road for six months is
not solving our needs, for our neighborhood.
It may be selfish on my part, but I'm -- six months from
now, six months from now.
If we don't have the resources today, I doubt if we're going
to have it six months from now.
And six months from then.
So I urge you to at least consider passing this ordinance.
I'm a very selfish person maybe, but our neighborhood feels
like, you know, we have from the north and the south side of
our neighborhood, we have people who are coming in to the
neighborhood and finding those empty homes to squatter in,
and you don't find any kids playing in that nice nearby park
because the parents don't feel safe there with their kids.

We don't know whether the homeless people have, you know,
mental issues or substance issues.
Thank you.
11:37:01AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much, sir.
Next please?
Some of the issues that you guys have already --
11:37:16AM >> I missed your name.
11:37:17AM >> Steve Sapp, Tampa, Florida.
Some of the issues you guys have already broughten up
before.
You mentioned $60 a day to house a homeless individual.
My figure was 50.
So my math can be a little off here.
But Councilwoman Montelione mentioned that 366 on the date
they took the homeless count were actually already
incarcerated.
Just by putting that math together, that's the average about
the year, that's about $6.6 million a year that goes towards
keeping them incarcerated.
Once they get out, from being incarcerated, once again
there's no option.
So they just get back into the system.
They don't wake up from being incarcerated an suddenly
develop job skills and a new place to stay.
The homeless shelters cost money.

We can give them the option all we want to go there, but if
they don't have the $10 at cheapest a night.
Granted the first five nights are free.
But after that it does cost some dollars and the cheapest,
that would be the cheapest.
Once again they have to get around the city, to get from
places they're eating at to places sleeping at.
That's $4 a day bus fair.
That's about $420 a month.
You're driving around the city, and have to be put into the
shelter, I think check in is 6:00 at night.
You don't have time to better education or find employment.
Also they get kicked out at 5:00 in the morning.
Where are they going to go with all their belongings?
Would be cheaper to give them a monthly hotel voucher and
bus pass, $400 a month cheaper than to house them in jail or
prison.
Hillsborough County has emergency shelter space for 1200
people.
And last count for Hillsborough County for the folks that
live on the street is actually 2200.
So there's obviously a thousand deficit there for what's
total amount of homeless men, women and children alone with
at risk, which I think is important.
Talking about just the chronically homeless.

What about the folks on the verge of becoming homeless?
That's problems down the road.
That's put at 17,270.
Over the past few years, only two new services were put into
effect by the Hillsborough County homeless coalition.
Both were designed only for homeless veterans.
Which amasses to less than one percent of the 17,270.
Hillsborough County homeless coalition has made no effort to
educate the public on homeless.
Most people are unaware what the homelessness coalition
does.
I've found that they've made pretty much no progress with
their nearly $8 million a year budget.
And perhaps we should be more focused less on the homeless
people and more focused on the agencies that are lacking to
get the job done, which we pay them with our tax dollars
for.
Thank you no thank you very much, sir.
Next please?
11:40:22AM >> Speaker waiver form, Troy Hartman.
Thank you.
One extra minute, please.
11:40:30AM >> Thank you.
My name is Don Rhode.
Office at 412 Madison street.

Based upon my experience with the way you guys deliberate, I
don't think this will matter much to you.
But for the next three minutes and 45 seconds, I'll be
quoting me, unless I quote Ms. Kert.
A letter that covered the transmittal of the amendments that
were made on this particular ordinance for Ms. Kert to City
Council and other people within the city, indicated the
changes that were supposed to be made.
Unless I'm reading this wrong, and I doubt I am, if you look
at the first addition of this, the change that was supposed
to be made whereas transportation to a shelter three times
previous.
The change that was made was three arrests or three
transportations to a shelter.
Leaving a person to read this and believe that you can't
arrest the guy the first time until you've arrested him
three times.
Notice I'm reading this wrong.
Again, I make this point not because it's such a horrible
thing to make this mistake.
It is not.
This is all evidence -- all of this is evidence of a sloppy,
rushed, less than thought out, absolutely not read by the 7
of you.
No way.

You would've caught.
This is a lot like the old six-inch piece of string --
whoops -- six-feet piece of rope speech that we got a year
ago August or whenever it was.
It was all about the misperception, no it the people that
propounded the six inch rule.
We were mistaken.
Again, I bet I'm mistaken here.
This is just me being wrong.
So to continue quoting me, I'd also like to point out that
there are constitutional provisions in play when you search
and seize peoples' belongings.
We still call it the fourth amendment in what Marco Rubio
continues to call these United States.
I'm going to lever this up here for you.
I know unless I do this, you guys won't read it because you
guys are not readers.
First sentence of that says that the right of the people to
be secure in their person's houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable search also and seizures shall not be
violated.
You're preamble, whereas, as is clause, whatever you're
going to call it, not a word.
Part of your discussion right now that starts out about 20
people in this audience, was about homeless infrastructure,

interdiction.
This statute that I think, or this proposed statute, this
proposed ordinance that was lifted out of the code of
Memphis -- Memphis, for God sake -- what about preoccupation
with Appalachia?
We're going to have bumper stickers sometime that say Tampa
gateway to Appalachia?
What is this?
Why isn't this legal department capable of drafting anything
on its own?
When Mr. Rodriguez authored the convention ordinance, he did
nothing but cut, copy, paste and print from Charlotte's.
And when Mr. Cohen told me that he didn't live in Charlotte,
I wanted to be able to say, wait a minute, you do.
You and the first three blocks of Harbor Island most
certainly live in Charlotte, given this ordinance.
Because guess what?
It was photo copied from them.
I believe Ms. Kert is capable of writing something that
matters and that works.
You've not -- you can't -- it's not even fair to the
discussion to say you've put the cart before the horse.
You've done none of the work.
None of it.
Absolutely none of it.

Thank you.
11:44:25AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much, sir.
Next please?
11:44:33AM >> Cora Williams, general deliver, Tampa, Florida.
Most of the opinions I was going to speak on has already
been spoken on.
So I'm just going to briefly state, I believe it's the
public's perspective of the homeless.
A lot of people automatically assume one is homeless,
they're drug addict or alcoholic, or if you simply speak to
them, they're trying to panhandle.
Some people, that's not the case.
From statistics I found, 18 million people are paycheck away
from being homeless.
Anybody from the CEO to the janitor in blink of an eye can
lose it all.
So my thing is this, I understand about the park and thing,
people don't feel safe.
But I believe a person acting in a civil manner, keeping to
themselves, being a law abiding citizen, being peaceful,
this they shouldn't be criminalized for that.
That's just my view on the situation.
[ Applause ]
11:45:36AM >> Good afternoon, honorable members of City Council.
My name is Mr. Soberanis.

1200 North Westshore Boulevard.
I've been here now two months.
I lived in Los Angeles for over 40 years.
I was a homeless provider in Los Angeles.
As most of you know, in Los Angeles, we have the largest
homeless in the nation.
And we need to look at what works for Los Angeles.
It is tremendous what the city of Los Angeles is doing to
help their homeless population.
What we really need to look at, and I agree with
Mr. Reddick, to just delay and I hope I have the name right,
Ms. Capin and Ms. Mulhern.
11:46:18AM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
That's an interpretation.
I accept it.
[ Laughter ]
11:46:23AM >> I'm from the west indies.
We pronounce it a little differ.
I apologize.
But I was a homeless provider in Los Angeles for over 20
years.
Came here because my health is deteriorating and the doctor
said I need to get to a city where there's fresh air.
So I decided to come to Tampa.
And to work with the homeless, either as a provider or as an
advocate.

I used to operate a shelter with 110 beds and one for 250
beds, 365 beds in one night.
But what we do at the shelter, we had pickup and dropoff
points.
We contract with a bus company.
We go to the locations where the homeless are.
And we pick them up from the certain location, bring them to
our shelter.
Always an available beds.
They get their breakfast, but the provider must provide case
management.
We cannot continue to give money unless we provide case
management.
And the problems of the case management is that the clients
can sit with the caseworker and we find the needs
assessment.
And we have them meet with us once a week and then we
provide them housing.
And what we do, we pick them up in desk time and in the
morning, big buses, 40 feeter.
They come in one drove.
Come to the shelter, come in the shelter, in the morning
those same people that we picked up, they are bussed back,
transported back to the location where they picked up.
We also have a thing called an access center.

I have a concept paper here that Councilman Reddick, I met
him in Walmart today.
Saw him, I recognized him and I approached him and told me
what my purpose here.
We have a thing called the homeless intervention connection
and reintegration access one stop center.
And this center has an array of services at one location.
Currently I have a building available, it's an 8,000 square
foot building.
It has about ten toilets four urinal also.
A kitchen and it's available in an area where there is
almost 200 homeless people there.
So, I think we should delay just so we can maybe have a task
force with homeless providers and stakeholders, so we can
continue to brainstorm and look at new ideas, what works for
Los Angeles I promise you, Los Angeles gets $74 million a
year through the C of C.
I believe if we advocate with the ICH more, we can get some
of those same monies that Los Angeles gets yearly.
$74 million.
So, thank you for your time.
11:48:52AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Before I continue, line 8, item C, I believe was pointed to
something, and I want to clear that up.
I'm not a judge.

But I want to hear the other side, make sure I'm in solid
ground.
11:49:06AM >>REBECCA KERT:
Yes, I did review the changes that I made.
And it certainly would not be the first time that I made a
mistake.
But it actually does say what I wanted it to say.
It was my understanding from the concerns that were
expressed at the last meeting, that it was a desire of City
Council not to just have a one time offer of shelter.
And then the next time if you had been offered it before,
and you either took it or refused it and were arrested, you
would not be offered it again.
So what that section -- that section does not say that you
have to be arrested three times before you can be arrested.
What it says is, even if you are arrested up to three times,
for each of those times, the second and the third time, we
will continue to offer you shelter space.
So it actually does say what I want it to say and if I could
just -- I'm not aware of what they do privately in Los
Angeles.
And I'm sure it sounds wonderful.
But, as far as the city of Los Angeles, a case recently came
out where they had a preliminary injunction issued against
based upon their actions in skid row, which is basically
going in picking up everyone's stuff and disposing of it.

Which is what I tried to write the ordinance not to do.
So, this was not modeled on that portion of what Los Angeles
does.
11:50:26AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Okay.
We're only about 11 minutes from break.
Unless we want to extend it.
I've got miss Montelione, Ms. Capin and Ms. Mulhern.
11:50:37AM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
--
11:50:38AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Excuse me.
Any other speaker who has not spoken?
Come forward, please.
My apologies to you.
11:50:45AM >> My name is the Troy Crump.
And I don't have is much to add here.
I applaud all the efforts that people have brought to the
public's attention today about the homeless issues and all
the task force, all the ideas.
I do agree that there's, there's really not enough in place
yet to go ahead with it.
And I just, I would like to ask you as your, whether you
choose to continue this or vote on it today, I'd like to ask
you to think about, if you were homeless, would you like
these laws?
Would you think they are fair?

Just put yourself in the place of some of the homeless,
while you're deciding on this.
And I just want to read something, because I think it really
speaks to the heart of the problem here about how people see
the homeless and why there's really, why there's really even
these ordinances being proposed today.
It's an article about a psychological study.
It says that cross cultural research shows that the only
group that consistently occupies the cold and competent
contempt quadrant is the economically disadvantaged.
The homeless, welfare recipients, poor people.
They're blamed for their misfortune.
They are neglected and become the targets of active harm.
Deep seeded patterns may prepare the way for maltreatment.
There's an area of the brain, the medial prefrontal cortex,
that is necessary for social perception, she explains.
Recent imaging research showed no activation of the MPFC in
response to pictures of homeless people.
People are not even recognizing them as human.
I think that's why we're even really discussing these laws
today.
And I just ask you to please, just think about what if you
were homeless and I don't think many of you even think for
one moment that you could ever end up in that situation.
But think about it.

What would you think about these laws?
What would you think about them really in thanks.
11:52:50AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Anyone else?
One last time, who has not spoken?
11:52:57AM >> Good afternoon.
I've been homeless for like a year and a half.
I wasn't expecting to be in front of you guys here today.
But wow, it's been a wild ride being homeless.
We live with people who are, come from different cultures.
Have different habits, have different issues.
I mean, at the parks, I've been around the Salvation Army
shelter area.
I've been asked by the police to show my ID.
I have felt harassed by it.
Since I have a clean, clean criminal record, I want to keep
it that way.
And not because I'm homeless people, I got to feel like I'm
committing a crime, which I have always avoided to.
I could go on and on and give you and tell you a bunch of
stories about me or other homeless people that I have met
during this year and a half, being on the streets of Tampa.

That's all I got to say for now.
11:54:10AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much, sir.

11:54:12AM >> Just brings a lot of memories.
11:54:14AM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Let me make a couple statements.
This ordinance is not perfect.
There's no ordinance that are perfect.
I don't think of anything in life that is perfect.
I can say that we have laws against speeding.
We have officers giving tickets for those who speed.
And we only talking about a very minority percentage that
are receiving the tickets.
If you speak today, somebody is more likely along this
country got robbed.
That ordinance is in place, but they still rob.
Someone got killed, got murdered.
There's laws against that.
There's laws against everything.
What I'm trying to say is, this is a tart, not the end.
Hopefully, this police department can come and give us a
report in the future if this is passed -- and this is going
to be a close vote.
I think you're wising up and understand what Councilmembers
have spoken.
I don't expect this thing to pass unanimously.
I don't expect it to pass by a very slim margin, if it
passes at all.

But, we can delay this for six weeks or six years.
And at the end, there's really no beginning there.
There's just an end.
And what I'm saying is, all those that have spoken are
correct.
Or against the ordinance.
But somewhere, there's got to be a start.
Whether this government or other governments get fully
involved is up to us, the eight elected officials.
I believe they will.
But I can say that to attack and attack and attack doesn't
solve much.
To try to remedy is only a start.
There is no silver lining on the other side.
This ordinance may fail.
Even if it does pass.
But it's got to have a start.
Got to have a try.
Got to have a compassion.
Got to have an understanding of what life is.
I wish there was no murderers.
I wish no one got killed in an automobile accident.
But it does happen every day.
So what I'm saying is, we got to be cognizant of what we
have on the start.

And I'm not going to bore Council with much more.
I'm going to yesterday an order to Mr. Reddick,
Ms. Montelione, Ms. Capin, and Ms. Mulhern.
11:56:49AM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say our officers have gone from serve and
protect to becoming social services cops.
And if we want to make them social services cops, then they
need to be reclassified in their position and applying for
social services agency position, because this is what
they're going to be become, social services cops.
Monitoring different areas of this community.
And I'm in, prepared to still go through with my original
request and that is to make a motion to delay this, just
recommendation, this item number 60, for 90 days.
And Mr. Snelling, ask Mr. Snelling and officer McDonald to
report back in 90 days, conversation they have had with, not
only the new officer, manager at Salvation Army, but also to
incorporate the gentleman who spoke from L.A. and see how we
can come up with some fresh ideas to make this policy what
we expected it to be in the City of Tampa.
11:58:03AM >> I will take that vote as soon as I have Ms. Montelione,
managers Capin and Ms. Mulhern have the right to speak.
And then we'll go right into that request of yours, sir.
Do I have a second by Miss Mulhern on your request.
But I got to go in order.

Ms. Montelione, Mr. Capin, and Miss Mulhern.
11:58:21AM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, sir.
The city of Los Angeles was one of the areas that were
looked at and discussed.
And in some of the groups and meetings that I've been
involved in.
And the city of Los Angeles has a dedicated funding source
for homeless services.
Much in the same way as the city of Miami has a dedicated
funding source for homeless services.
There are many places around the country who have the
funding that we do not have.
We do not have a dedicated funding source for homeless
services.
And that's one of the things that Councilman Cohen was with
me at the hope Nehemiah action.
We were both on the staged and were asked about working, if
we would commit to working on establishing a dedicated
homeless funding source.
And Los Angeles uses tobacco funds.
They placed an additional tax, which is why if you buy
cigarettes in Los Angeles, it's a lot more expensive than
they are here.
There's an additional tax waged on tobacco products.
And that additional tax money is used to fund homeless

services.
So we can talk about other places, but we have looked at all
of these things before.
And that's part of my frustration is, all of these things
have been discussed before.
And I'm not in support of delaying this because as captain
Hamlin pointed out, this ordinance, if we don't have shelter
space, if we don't have places to take the individuals,
they're not going to be arrested.
The ordinance is fine.
I think we have worked hard to bring it to the place it is
now.
I mean, I wish we didn't have a need for this ordinance.
In my heart of hearts, that's what I, you know, would really
love to not be sitting here and not be having this
conversation because we don't have a homeless issue in the
city.
But that is not realistic.
It's not realistic anywhere in the country.
It's not realistic anywhere in the world.
There are going to be homeless people.
There are always going to be homeless people.
No matter how many beds, how many shelters, there are also
going to be homeless individuals, because there are
circumstances that put new people into the system every day.

Whether it's a foreclosure, whether it's a medical problem,
whether you know, it's being thrown out by your parents,
there are always going to be people who find themselves
suddenly homeless with nowhere else to go.
So, I am in support of the ordinance.
I'm in support of passing it today.
We continue to work on all these issues, 90 days as captain
Hamlin said, 90 days is not going to all of a sudden give us
a facility.
It's not going to give us a new program.
These are long-term solutions, yes, and they're going to be
continued solutions that we need to work on.
12:01:18PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I need an extension of time, Mr. Suarez.
12:01:20PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So moved.
12:01:24PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Suarez, 15 minutes, second by
Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
12:01:29PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank take you.
And when we talk about a facility or we talk about many
facilities, do we talk about one or two dozen?
I want to remind my fellow Councilmembers that when
individuals come here for a rezoning request, or a special
use application, because they need to locate a shelter in a

place where it's not existed before, we need to support
those applications.
And oftentimes, it's a not in my backyard issue that comes
to us.
And we -- if we hopefully find additional locations, there's
one going in my district, hopefully, cross my fingers.
It's going to be soxful.
I'm going to have to answer to my constituents why there's a
homeless facility in my district.
So, just keep that in mind as we go forward.
Because that was one of the locations that I was able to
find with the homeless first people.
And they're working on that location as we speak.
So, it's one day at a time, as captain Hamlin spoke.
Thank you for that.
12:02:31PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.
Ms. Capin?
12:02:33PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
When we referring to facilities, when Mr. Snelling got up,
he referred to it as warehousing.
When the administration refers to housing and the
recommendations of City Council as warehousing, it tells you
it's very telling, very telling of this.
And another attack, attack, attack.
No, we have sat here, solutions, no.

And you know what in people put themselves to be leaders.
Well, lead.
That's what we're looking at.
That's why we're here.
That's what we're trying to do.
Now, when I heard -- I cringed when I heard Mr. Snelling say
warehouse.
In reference to something like Pinellas hope.
And that to me --
12:03:35PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm sorry.
I said that.
12:03:37PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
He said it.
12:03:38PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Please, please.
12:03:39PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I have the floor.
12:03:40PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
On both sides, please.
12:03:42PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I have the floor.
This is -- this is a huge, huge issue.
And you know?
I can't tell what the future is going to bring.
But I know what the past brought.
We passed a panhandling ordinance two years ago in
September.
And two years have passed, and now we're looking at -- this
is exactly what was said was going to happen.
Because there is, you know, our hands are tied because we're

the city and the county controls the social services.
Well, we -- the City Council did reach out to the county
commission.
I met with Commissioner Sandy Murman, who is the point
person for the homeless in the county.
So the City Council did reach out to the county to help us
with this.
We are this county seat, the City of Tampa.
We are the economic engine.
This is an economic issue.
And you know, this is a start.
So was the panhandling.
So I can't tell the future, but I do know what happened in
the past.
And for that reason, and also in the ordinance, that three
mile distance will put them, can put them in Pinellas
County.
And then that we have to provide public transportation.
I have a very concern with that.
That we can actually drop them off and drop people off, not
them -- people.
So -- and I agree, the parks are not anywhere where people
should live.
And everyone has a right.
These parks belong to everyone in the city.

And it isn't -- you know what?
When businesses come here and they're looking to our city to
transfer here, their business, their corporations and they
come in to our city core and see these people sleeping and
living in the park, that image is a very poor image of our
city.
That we have not provided anywhere else for these people to
be.
This is trying to be a start, but it's not complete.
And this ordinance isn't complete.
And therefore, I will support the continuance.
12:06:38PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All right.
We go back to the continuance.
I have a motion by Mr. Reddick, I have a second by
Miss Mulhern for continuation of item number 60.
You all ready for the vote in I don't think this is a roll
call vote.
We're taking about the delay.
So, all in favor of the motion made by Mr. Reddick, second I
by Miss Mulhern for 60 day continuance -- 90 days
continuance -- October 17th at 9:30 a.m.
That's the original motion made by Mr. Reddick, second by
Miss Mulhern.
Please signify by sighing aye.
Opposed nay?

12:07:16PM >>THE CLERK:
I believe the motion face.
12:07:18PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Let's have a voice roll call.
12:07:20PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
No.
12:07:22PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
12:07:24PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes.
12:07:28PM >>HARRY COHEN:
No.
12:07:30PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
No.
12:07:31PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
No.
12:07:33PM >>THE CLERK:
The motion failed 3-4, with Suarez, Cohen,
Montelione and Miranda voting no.
12:07:41PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay, I told you it would be a tight
vote.
And anything that came up on item number 60.
We have listened to the public.
We have debated it among Councilmembers.
We have taken information.
We have heard both sides of the issue.
Who wants to read this ordinance?
12:08:05PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I do, sir.
12:08:06PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Montelione?
12:08:07PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
12:08:12PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Point of order.
12:08:13PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
What's the point?
12:08:14PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
On the ordinance, I'd like to propose an
amendment to the ordinance.

12:08:22PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Well, you have to ask the legal
department to address that.
Not I.
12:08:27PM >> What you can have, you can have the motion on the floor
and then do a motion to amend.
12:08:33PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I have to read the ordinance.
12:08:37PM >> Is the hearing still open?
12:08:39PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I don't believer I closed the hearing.
12:08:41PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion to close by Ms. Montelione,
seconded by Mr. Suarez to close the hearing.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
Hearing is not closed 6-1.
That was to close the hearing.
Revote.
I have a motion by Ms. Montelione, second by Mr. Suarez to
close the public hearing on item number 60.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
Hearing is now closed.
The order is to read the ordinance and then to amend, is
that it?
12:09:12PM >> That would be appropriate.
12:09:13PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay, Ms. Montelione.
12:09:15PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.

I move a substitute ordinance, an ordinance of the City of
Tampa, Florida making revisions to Tampa city code of
ordinances chapter 14 offenses, creating section 14-50
through section 14-53, regulating behavior in public spaces,
repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict
therewith; providing for severability; providing an
effective date.
12:09:39PM >> Second.
12:09:39PM >>I have a motion by Ms. Montelione, I have a second by
Mr. Suarez.
This is a roll call vote.
12:09:51PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Request for amendment.
12:09:53PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay.
Mr. Capin?
12:09:55PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I'd like to add, amend the motion to, for
this ordinance to sunset on January 18th.
12:10:11PM >> What year?
12:10:12PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
The ordinance to sunset on January 18th.
That would be six months from now.
2014.
At that point, it may be brought back.
And if everyone thinks this is such a great beginning, it
should be a no-brainer.
12:10:33PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Let me speak about the no-brainer.
I have a motion by Mrs. Capin, second by Mr. Reddick.

I'm a no-brainer.
I also have no hair.
[ Laughter ]
12:10:43PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
But I can tell you this.
It only takes four votes to change an ordinance.
To sunset an ordinance, same thing as changing an ordinance.
So if someone would like to bring that up 30 days after this
ordinance passes, let's wait six months, two months, five
months, six months, a year, it can be done with this Council
or any other Council.
So these the only reason -- I'm not against you, but all you
need is four votes to change any ordinance.
12:11:10PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I understand.
I still --
12:11:13PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All right.
We have a motion by Mrs. Capin -- I have a motion by
Mrs. Capin --
12:11:20PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Excuse me, don't I have to accept the
amendment?
12:11:25PM >> She made a motion to amend.
That was second it by Mr. Reddick.
12:11:30PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
So, I think I have to take a vote.
12:11:34PM >> On the amendment.
12:11:35PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
The amendment first before I go to the
roll call vote.

I have a motion by Mrs. Capin, state it again for the
record.
12:11:42PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
To sunset on January 18, 2014.
12:11:45PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Ms. Capin on that said date,
said year, second bring Reddick on that vote, to sunset.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
12:11:56PM >> Are we just voting on the amendment?
12:11:58PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
On the amendment.
I have a motion for that.
I have Ms. Capin made the motion, second by Mr. Reddick.
And the vote is taken on, for approval for the sunset.
All those against that, please signify by saying no.
Roll call by voice.
12:12:18PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
No.
12:12:20PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
12:12:21PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes.
12:12:22PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Yes.
12:12:24PM >>HARRY COHEN:
No.
12:12:25PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
No.
12:12:26PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
No.
12:12:28PM >>THE CLERK:
The motion fails 3-4 with Suarez, Cohen,
Miranda and Montelione voting no.
12:12:35PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay, we go back to the original motion.
Ordinance was read by Ms. Montelione, second by Mr. Suarez.
Roll call vote, vote and record.

12:12:52PM >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Capin and Reddick voting
no.
12:13:04PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes, ma'am?
12:13:06PM >>MARY MULHERN:
I need to revote.
I'm sorry.
I thought we were voting on the ordinance.
12:13:10PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Let me explain again what it is.
It is the passage of item number 60.
If you vote yes, you vote for it.
If you vote no, you vote against.
Roll call vote, vote and record.
12:13:23PM >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Capin, Reddick and Mulhern
voting no.
12:13:33PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
We stand adjourned.
I'm going to give an hour and a half so we could have lunch
and go wherever you like.
All of those in the audience, we stand adjourned to 1:45.


TAMPA CITY COUNCIL



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

Thursday, July 18, 2013

1:45 p.m. Session



DISCLAIMER:

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


01:48:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
City Council is called to order.

Roll call.

01:54:44 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.

01:54:49 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.

01:54:50 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Here.

01:54:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.

And we are going to open some meetings and hold them and

continue with the agenda at 61.

01:54:59 >>MARY MULHERN:
Then we are going to jump to 80 for a

minute.

I need a motion from council, public hearings, open 64 and

65.

These are nonquasi-judicial and we are going to receive and

file all the documents on 64 and 65.

01:55:16 >>MARY MULHERN:
I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione.




Second by Mr. Cohen.

All in favor of that motion?

I need to open hearings on nonquasi-judicial 66.

Motion by Mr. Reddick.

Second by Mrs. Montelione on 66.

All in favor?

The ayes have it unanimously.

Also receive and file.

Receive and file the documents on item 67 and 68.

Need to open that public hearing.

Motion by Mrs. Montelione to receive and file on 67 and 68

to be open.

Seconded by Mr. Cohen.

All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

Opposed nay.

01:55:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Mr. Chairman, item 67 --

01:55:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I know it's going to be removed.

I know it.

The public hearings 69 and 70.

Judicial hearings.

Need a motion to open 69 and 70.

Motion by Mrs. Montelione.

Second by Mr. Cohen.

All in favor of the motion?

Opposed?




The ayes have it unanimously.

Item number 71 is a quasi-judicial proceeding.

Receive and file all the document.

Motion by Mrs. Montelione, second by Mr. Cohen.

All in favor of the motion?

Opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

All the public hearings are now open.

We are going to handle 61 hopefully and then we are going to

go to 80 on a special request of some time constraints that

we have with individuals.

61.

01:56:46 >>ERNEST MUELLER:
Assistant city attorney.

We are here for second reading, an ordinance making some

changes to sections 19-4 and 19-5.

I explained them at the first hearing.

If you have questions, or if you need me to explain any

further.

01:57:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Any questions by council members at this time?

This is a second hearing proceeding on item number 61.

Anyone in the audience care to speak on item 61?

61, please come forward.

I see in one.

I have a motion to close by Mr. Reddick, second by Mrs.




Montelione.

All in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it unanimously.

Mr. Reddick, would you kindly take number 61, please, sir?

01:57:30 >> Move answer ordinance presented for second reading and

adoption, an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida

relating to enforcement of city code, making revision to the

City of Tampa code of ordinances, chapter 19, property

maintenance, structure standards, 19-4, department of code

enforcement, duties and scope of authority of the director,

ending section 19-5, authority of the director, repealing

all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith,

providing for severability, providing an effective date.

01:58:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Mr. Reddick.

Seconded by Mr. Cohen.

This is second reading.

So roll call vote.

Vote and record.

01:58:18 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Capin, Suarez and Mulhern

being absent at vote.

01:58:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Let me just say that all those

petitioners that are in the audience, we have four council

members.

That means that every ordinance has to pass unanimously, by




the four of us here now.

If you want to continue this matter, you are entitled to

continue, if you don't like -- don't feel comfortable having

only four members decide, you are entitled to that.

We go to item number 80 real quick.

This is a public hearing.

Is petitioner here?

01:59:04 >> We need to open p the public hearing?

01:59:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
No.

They are open.

We opened them already.

01:59:12 >> Number 80.

01:59:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
This is quasi-judicial.

Anyone speaking on this item must be sworn in.

Anyone that's going to speak on 0 -- in fact anyone that's

going to speak on 78 through 81 should be sworn in at this

time.

(Oath administered by Clerk)

All right.

Let's go.

01:59:40 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Land development.

The petition is V-13-80.

It involves property at 6401 North Florida Avenue, and the

request is for small venue, beer and wine, on premises,

consumption, and package sales consumption off preemption.




The petitioners are asking for a waiver of criteria, along

the mixed use corridor village.

They are asking to wave the distance from other AB

establishments from 250 to 123 feet, reduction to

residential uses is 250 feet to 60 feet, and they are asking

for reduction of off-street parking from ten spaces to six

spaces.

The establishments being requested is for a microbrewery.

It's for a one-story existing structure, and they will have

a tasting room associated with it.

The building contains 2,897.17 square feet, interior sales

area only.

They will be having tours within the brewery area.

The actual tasting room, though, is about a third of the

square footage of the property.

The total occupancy of the use will be 70.

They are asking for reduction in parking.

The site plan shows a one 88 space standard and one

motorcycle.

I have the map that shows the location.

The property is on Florida Avenue.

At the corner of -- it is in the Seminole Heights area.

I have a revision sheet as well as the police reports that I

can give to City Council.

But staff found the request inconsistent with code.




02:01:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Police office?

02:01:57 >> Officer Don Miller, City of Tampa police department.

We have no objection.

02:02:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.

Petitioner?

02:02:26 >> Commissioners, thank you for hearing this application,.

02:02:41 >> Need your name and address.

02:02:44 >> I'm sorry.

Greg barnhill, 219 south Glen ARBON Avenue in Temple

Terrace.

The site plan that is displayed should be in your package,

also, but it is therefore referenced if need be.

The building is property that has been vacant and in

disrepair for approximately ten years, in the Seminole

Heights neighborhood.

We are proposing to have the microbrewery come in and do

manufacturing and small tasting room.

On the overhead is the artist rendering of the proposed

repairs to the building and improvements

, different from what you see on the site plan.

Angry chair microbrewery has been put into a ten year lease

for this location.

Their hours are actually limited in comparison to the other

restaurants and alcohol serving the establishment from the




neighborhood.

Monday through Friday, they are proposed 4 to 11.

Saturday 12 to 12.

And Sunday 12 to 9.

There is no consumption of alcohol outside of the building.

There's no exterior seating outside of the building.

Everything will take place within the footprint of the

existing building.

There is a letter that was supplied in your packet from the

Seminole Heights neighborhood, Old Seminole Heights

neighborhood association.

They are in agreement with the proposed improvements.

It is also the first project that will come through as part

of the form based zoning that has been recently approved and

reviewed by City Council.

The parking, two employees actually will be parking at one

of four, and walking across the street to work in the

establishment.

Additionally, yesterday, I was able to receive a statement

from direct mail services owner, a parcel located at 6301

North Florida Avenue.

She has agreed to allow for overflow parking that may

result.

And for orientation purposes, we will submit that for the

record.




For orientation purposes, the building, the location for the

proposed microbrewery.

The orange parcel is a lot that is owned by Bramlett

services.

They are in the green building the next lot south.

They have a potential for 19 parking spots.

So that will more than address the four that we don't have

on-site.

Additionally, yesterday we received a written notarized

statement from Carlos tavern which is across the street,

Florida Avenue, and again a reference map.

The green hutched building is the property in question

across the street is a double lot that's vacant.

And then also the paved parking for San Carlos at the west

north street on Florida.

So to look at those together, the orange, a vacant parcel,

and then green being existing buildings which have parking

for those businesses.

They both have signed a written statement that will

accommodate for any overflow of parking that will be needed,

which would negate the request for the waiver for the four

parking spaces.

02:06:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anything else?

02:06:55 >> No, I believe that would be all, unless you have

questions.




02:06:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any questions by council members?

Anyone in the audience care to speak on this item, item

number 80?

80?

V-13-80.

02:07:08 >> My name is Ingrid Smith.

I reside at 5605 north Suwannee Avenue, one block north of

Florida Avenue and outside of the notification ring.

Zoning requests for Seminole Heights.

A few years back, when they moved in found out they did not

want to be in the South Howard neighborhood so unofficially

we created a wet zoning, that if we wanted approval from the

neighborhood would be Sunday through Thursday, up until

midnight, with and then Friday and Saturday, 1 a.m. with

music to stop one hour prior.

They have actually asked for less than what we have been

getting, the refinery, and we have now seem to be coming

home for microbreweries.

This is not a bar, so therefore they don't expect to have

the density of customers coming through.

So their primary business is going to be the manufacturing

of their product.

Therefore, they are not going to have the need for the

parking like a lot of our businesses have to have.

And in Seminole Heights, we are always going to have parking




as an issue.

So the neighboring businesses have learned how to work with

each other, a partnership to help each other out, because

the business is during the day, downtown need the night

parking and vice versa.

It seemed like that worked well for Seminole Heights in the

past eight years so we have sort of unofficially been having

our Seminole Heights wet zoning.

We have not become a nuisance area of Ybor, and South Howard

is still having issues trying to roll back the clock.

So we support this.

And there were people earlier but they couldn't stay for the

afternoon.

So we hope you support this, as well as some of the

accommodations for the walk-out.

But it's been -- along with the different mom and pops in

Seminole Heights.

Thank you.

02:09:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Next, please.

02:09:50 >> My name is NANA robeson, I live also in Seminole Heights

and I'm just actually here for another issue but I came up

to support Greg because I know that all the properties that

he has developed have actually helped Seminole Heights.

We are trying to redevelop it, as you all know, and so I




wanted to give him my support on this.

I think it's a good project and it's definitely a good thing

for Florida Avenue because the building is going to be

rehabbed and will look a whole lot better than it does now.

02:10:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Next, please.

02:10:23 >> Susan Long, 920 East Broad Street.

Smell menu craft beer brewery.

They invested several much money and time into this.

They have refurbished the building that has been vacant for

at least ten years.

I don't know it ever being occupied and I have lived in

Seminole Heights for 17 years.

They made every attempt to make this a friendly attractive

venue.

One of the problems that Seminole Heights faces is parking.

Form based zoning allows shared parking among other things.

There were other reasons for it as well.

This venue has two outside agreements for parking, keep the

residential portion of the neighborhood unencumbered with

the overflow parking.

Numerable people worked tirelessly to work on the corridors

of Seminole Heights and this small brewery would add to the

redevelopment and add to the value of all Seminole Heights

properties.




I urge you to support it.

Thank you.

02:11:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Next, please.

02:11:28 >> Ryan Doulle, 1153 Candlewood court.

Thank you for your time.

We have gone through great strides to partner with the

community.

We have actually went down and spoken to each homeowner and

said, listen, we are coming to the community, we have no

issues whatsoever, and we are a manufacturing company.

We are here to promote jobs, create synergy in Seminole

Heights.

And we are here to help.

We don't wants to be a burden.

That's the last thing I want to be.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you.

02:12:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Anyone else in the audience care tocare to speak on this

item?

Petitioner, you have got five minutes for rebuttal I.don't

think you need it but I have to give that you right.

02:12:12 >> One additional comment, if I might.

02:12:14 >> Oh, my God, you are going to tear down your own star.




02:12:22 >> The other partner Shane and I actually took the time to

go from Florida Avenue to branch, so the houses wouldn't be

impacted.

No one had an issue with the project coming in.

And we have the rehabilitation of the property.

Thank you.

02:12:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anything else?

Need a motion to close.

02:12:47 >> Motion to close.

02:12:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion to close by Mrs. Montelione,

second by Mr. Suarez.

All in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it unanimously.

I believe it is your turn, Mrs. Montelione, item number 80.

02:12:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Nice to see you, Mr. Barnhill.

Number 80.

I was on 61 so let me flip my pages here.

I move an ordinance being presented for first reading

consideration, approving a special use permit S-1 for

alcoholic beverage sales, small venue consumption on

premises and package sales off premises and making lawful

the sale of beer and wine at or from that certain lot, plot

or tract of land located at 6401 North Florida Avenue,

Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in section 2,




that all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict are

repealed, providing an effective date.

02:13:40 >> Second.

02:13:44 >> With a revision sheet submitted by staff.

02:13:47 >> Motion by Mrs. Montelione.

Second by Mr. Suarez.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Second reading?

02:13:55 >>THE CLERK:
Second reading will be held August 1st at

9:30 a.m.

And that vote was with Capin being absent at vote.

02:14:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much for attending all of

you.

We go back to item number 62.

62.

Counselor?

02:14:15 >>ERNEST MUELLER:
Assistant city attorney here on second

reading of an ordinance that is to correct a scrivener's

error that incorrectly refers to article 6 when it should

have been referring to article 2.

That's in the ordinance 2013-67 passed earlier this year.

Available for questions.




02:14:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anyone in the audience care to speak to

item number 62?

This is the second reading coming back for scrivener's

error.

Item 62.

02:14:46 >>MARY MULHERN:
Anyone care to speak on it?

Motion to close by Mr. Cohen.

Seconded by Mrs. Montelione.

All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

Opposed nay.

Motion passes unanimously.

To close.

Mr. Suarez, would you kindly read item number 62?

02:15:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I move an ordinance being presented for

second reading and adoption, an ordinance of the city of

Tampa, Florida amending ordinance number 2013-67 passed and

ordained by the City Council of the City of Tampa on May 16,

2013, by correcting a scrivener's error in the body of the

ordinance, replacing article VI with article II, providing

for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for

severability, providing an effective date.

02:15:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mr. Suarez, second by Mr.

Reddick.

Roll call vote.

Vote and record.




02:15:40 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.

02:15:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Item number 63.

02:15:51 >>ERNEST MUELLER:
City attorney.

This is ordinance for second reading that is amending

chapter 23.5, to add in additional code provisions to allow

for civil citation enforcement, code sections deal with

chapter 22, and 25, which is in the transportation area.

And a couple of code sections pertain to the excessive

noise, which you passed earlier today.

I'm available for any questions.

02:16:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Any questions by council members?

Anyone in the audience care to speak on this item, item

number 63?

63?

Please come forward.

02:16:35 >> Move to close.

02:16:38 >> Second.

02:16:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Mr. Reddick.

I see no one coming forward.

Second by Mr. Cohen.

All in favor?

The hearing is now closed.

Mr. Cohen, 63, please.

02:16:46 >>HARRY COHEN:
I move an ordinance being presented for




second reading and adoption.

An ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida relating to

violations and penalties making revisions to the City of

Tampa code of ordinances, amending chapter 23 .5,

supplemental enforcement procedures, amending section 23

.5-5, schedule of violations and penalties, repealing all

ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith,

providing for severability, providing an effective date.

02:17:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Mr. Cohen for

approval.

Second by Mr. Suarez.

Roll call vote.

Vote and record.

02:17:34 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Mulhern being absent at

vote.

02:17:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We go back to transportation committee

chair, Mrs. Yolie Capin on 52.

02:17:47 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank, chair and council members for their

indulgence on this item.

I have spoken with Sonya Little, and those numbers will be

coming to me, and we talked about where they are coming

from.

So I would like to go ahead and move number 52.

02:18:01 >> Second.

02:18:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion for approval by Mrs. Capin, second




by Mrs. Montelione.

All in favor?

Opposed?

The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you all very much.

We go to item 64.

These hearings were opened.

We received and filed all the documents, and everyone that

we are going to have.

The only thing I would say, these are quasi-judicial

proceedings on 64 and 65.

So that means that if you are going to get the opportunity

to speak, and also on 67 through 68, and also 69 through 70,

and also 71.

So if you are going to speak on these items, you must be

sworn in in order to have the opportunity to speak.

Anyone that's going to speak on those items that I

mentioned, please stand up and get sworn in.

We appreciate it very much.

(Oath administered by Clerk)

02:18:52 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Land development.

This is on second reading for petition V-12-267.

The site plans were received and certified by the zoning

administer.

At the end of the last public hearing I wanted to report




back that staff did meet with the transportation division

and the applicant to discuss the process of reviewing the

valet parking.

Transportation does review the review of the activity in the

public right-of-way.

They do circulate the application to the zoning office so

that we can verify the property being used for parking does

meet code requirements.

At this time the applicant has not submitted a formal

application for valet parking.

Staff in and remains concerned about the enforceability of

the condition as it relates to the valet parking, and the

impact the valeting of 71 parking spaces will have on the

residential area.

Approval of this application, will waive 71 of the required

75 off-street parking spaces for the restaurant use.

They have an occupancy of 295.

Staff has found this inconsistent.

Transportation planning has done a sketch of how the valet

operation will function on this property.

There's 45 feet on the north side of Azeele that we will be

able to accommodate the valet.

Depends on how cars will approach the property, they'll have

to go through the neighborhood back to the other drop-off

here.




They come through the neighborhood.

They would have basically two spaces for the valeting.

Staff again is concerned about this, and we find the request

inconsistent with city code requirements.

02:21:06 >>MARY MULHERN:
Ms. Moreda, we are having problems.

We couldn't hear.

Could you repeat what you just said because we couldn't see

the diagram.

02:21:19 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
On the north side of Azeele, about 45 feet

area where they will be able to stage the valet activity,

which will accommodate about two cars.

If a car is coming off of Howard, it will have to turn on

Azeele, move back around, so that they can then drop off on

this property.

Otherwise, the cars are going to have to be coming in from

Azeele to drop in.

You know, that is a residential area.

We have serious concerns about valeting 71 parking spaces

for this use.

02:21:54 >> Mr. Suarez?

02:22:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Would you come back up here?

What you drew there, that is the recommendation of

transportation?

Or is this something that was part of the site plan?

Because I don't remember seeing this as part of the site




plan.

02:22:22 >> It is not part of the site plan.

The transportation planning division, we looked at this

location, and knowing the required setback off the

intersection basically scaled off what area would be

available for a valet operation at this location.

02:22:41 >> And is this something that shouldn't be part of the --

should be part of the site plan in order --

02:22:47 >> No.

02:22:48 >> They don't need to do that?

That's just your recommendation based on the total number of

spaces that are needed and the valet operation that they say

they are going to put in place?

02:22:57 >> This is what they are indicating that they are going to

valet 71 parking spaces.

02:23:02 >> Right.

02:23:02 >> And at that point to have a valet on the public

right-of-way at this location, this is the constraints of

the site.

02:23:09 >> Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, chair.

02:23:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.

Anyone else?

Petitioner?




02:23:14 >> Good afternoon.

My name is Mark Bentley, 201 North Franklin Street, Tampa

33602 and I have been sworn.

As you recall two weeks ago at the hearing, the petition was

approved subject to approval on second reading.

As Ms. Moreda indicated, plans have been certified.

We put every condition on the site plan that we discussed ad

nauseam last time.

In my years of practice here in the City of Tampa with

respect to alcoholic beverage petitions, this is probably

the most heavily regulated petition.

I don't need to go into all the conditions relating to hours

of operation nor noise attenuation and things like that.

So at the conclusion of last hearing, Chairman Miranda

expressed some concerns about the availability of valet for

the subject property.

As you recall, we self-impose imposed a condition that we

would provide valet service for the patrons, and that's a

condition of site plan approval.

So hopefully Mr. MIZE makes it through the permitting

process.

He can't get a permit or CO until he confirms that the city,

or actually have that valet permit in hand.

I would like to back up a second.

My client and I met with city transportation, valet people,




including Mr. Jonathan Scott, an attendant, a Ms. Moreda,

and my recollection, transportation wasn't concerned about

valet per se.

We are still trying to hammer out the specific logistics of

that location.

So back to this meeting.

So we met with the city transportation people, Mrs. Moreda,

to determine the requirements when we pursued the valet

permit.

First of all, city transportation said obtaining the permit

would be feasible.

Secondarily, Mrs. Moreda indicated that any cars that the

valets would have to be on commercial property, that would

allow the subject use under consideration.

So the parking would have to be, for example, on another

property zoned to allow a restaurant, okay?

With that in mind, Mr. Mize then entered into an agreement

with 717 enterprises, probably the leading parking or valet

company, not only in Tampa, probably the southeast United

States.

717, by the way, valets or provides valet service for many

venues not only around the city but specifically Howard

Avenue.

So they are very familiar with how the process works, the

permitting process, and also they have got a lot of property




available.

It's commercially zoned to accommodate the subject property.

And what I have done -- and we just got this last night,

Mr. Chairman -- a brief letter from Mr. Jason McCarty to

you and I have a copy for the record concerning the valet

parking.

It will take me about 30 seconds, if you don't mind.

Dear Chairman Miranda, I am the owner and president of 717

parking enterprises.

I understand that as condition of approval for the above

referenced petition, the petitioner must provide sufficient

parking to accommodate patrons of the proposed

establishment.

More specifically, the petitioner cannot open its business

until it receives the necessary valet permits.

Accordingly, our company has entered into an agreement with

petitioner to provide valet parking at certain locations

described below.

Collectively between a petitioner's lot leased by the

petitioner an lots controlled by our company, a minimum of

71 vehicles can be accommodated for the petitioner.

Please note that all of the locations under our control as

well as the petitioner's have proper CG zoning to allow for

the parking of vehicles pursuant to the city's valet permit

process.




Furthermore, although not required by the city, all parking

locations are located within a thousand feet of petitioner's

proposed restaurant.

These locations are as follows.

Et cetera, et cetera.

And here again, this is not the design exception process

where we are trying to fulfill required parking for this

1,000-foot limitation or proximity.

Not withstanding it doesn't apply, these locations are still

within 1,000 feet.

And as it addresses on the letter and also the zoning map

identifying the specific locations and other information

concerning location.

Bottom line is, required parking with the subject petition

of 74 spaces, we modify the site plan to include from two to

three, and so we are seeking a waiver for 71 spaces, with

the condition that we have valet at the time of CO, and

anytime thereafter.

So if you have any questions concerning the valet parking, I

have got the president of 717 in attendance here, Mr. Jason

McCarty.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

02:28:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Capin?

02:28:32 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
(off microphone)

Do you own the property?




02:28:37 >> I do not.

I'm under a land lease.

02:28:45 >> How long is your lease?

Are they all different?

02:28:47 >> They are different, yes, ma'am.

02:28:55 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Okay.

I have a question for Ms. Kert.

If the site plans are not adhered to what are the results?

02:29:15 >> If the city believes a condition is not being adhered to

then the city would need to bring code enforcement action,

as we have discussed before pending on the type of

violation, we have different remedies available to us.

But assuming we bring it to a code enforcement hearing

master, it would be our burden to prove that there was in

fact a violation.

02:29:34 >> Okay.

Thank you.

02:29:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, Mrs. Capin.

This is a public hearing on item number 64, V-12-267.

Anyone in the audience care to speak on this item?

Please come forward.

02:29:51 >> Good afternoon.

I'm Steve Michelini here on behalf of HCB investments who

owns the property immediately to the north of this proposed

alcoholic beverage petition.




The problem starts with a property that's 2,384 square feet.

And then it is tripled in size to 4,340 square feet, and the

expansion eliminates the possibility of any on-site parking,

except for two or three spaces.

When you double the size of a piece of property, it is very

different than going into an existing structure, renovating

it, and turning it into a restaurant, or some other

establishment.

So you have compromised the site to begin with, by the

development plan, and you remove the possibility of on-site

parking.

Reliance upon valet parking is the sole means of parking,

means that you have waived all the requirement for the

required parking.

Not one of the establishments along Howard has ever come to

you and said, waive 90% of the parking and we'll do the rest

via valet.

The companies that are there either have bought commercial

property and torn it down to create parking lots, and

adequate parking, or at least come close to meeting the

parking requirement, and not prevailed upon the other

businesses and residences to meet the parking requirement.

So what you are asking is, via valet, for the neighbors to

be inconvenienced, for the patrons of other legally

established businesses to be burdened, or both.




And waiving the parking requirement is permanent.

So this site permanently will not have a parking

requirement.

It will have a valet requirement.

Regardless of what goes in there.

Other businesses have gone in and tried to do the best that

they could.

It's not always been easy meeting with the neighbors and

working out the issues.

But when you take an existing building, and then you try to

expand it to this extent, you have caused your own problem.

And then you come to the city, and you come to the

neighbors, and you come to the other businesses, and you ask

them to let us go, give us a break, let us valet everything.

Last time, they relied on a parking company who had all the

parking lots already tied up.

And now you have the reliance on another parking and valet

company who says we have the parking.

Those parking spaces are also used for other businesses.

So then you have to adjust your operating hours to reflect

when those businesses that are using those parking spaces

are closed.

So you have a number of different problems.

The size and scope is too large.

The waivers are too large, and inconsiderate of both the




neighbors and the businesses.

We respectfully they go back and refit their drawings, redo

their project and come in with a reasonable proposal or deny

it.

02:33:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Next, please.

02:33:12 >> Good afternoon.

I'm Tim Glissen, 2001 west DeLeon street in courier city.

I'm president of the Courier City Oscawana neighborhood

association.

And our neighborhood continues to oppose the wet zoning of

the South Howard project.

At last council meeting on this subject, there was a

discussion that the only possible use for this property was

a bar, the only possible use.

That doesn't be further from the truth.

Here is a map, a two-block radius.

See it highlighted in yellow here?

This is the proposed bar right here.

Every red star here is a nonalcohol business.

They don't serve alcohol.

And there's more.

There's 30-plus businesses just on Howard, two blocks north.

And there's a list of all the businesses just on Howard, two




blocks north.

If you get off of Howard, there's approximately 40

businesses, and there's more than that.

I just got tired of riding around and counting the

businesses.

So on this corner right here, this is the antique shop.

This is the barbecue catty-corner to it.

This is two attorneys offices.

And all these businesses right here, nearly every one of

them can be hit if you throw a baseball hard enough.

That's how close the businesses are to the intersection.

So let's see if I can finish here.

It's hard to believe that we need to make a concession on a

prime piece of real estate in Hyde Park.

We have plenty of drinking spaces.

We don't really need one more.

Now, Courier City, at least Courier City, we are not

anti-development.

As a matter of fact, we want different development.

We start add committee to support our local businesses.

So please deny this project.

Thank you.

02:36:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Next, please.

02:36:03 >> Susan Lake, are you present?




Thank you.

One additional minute, please.

02:36:16 >>> Good afternoon, council.

My name is Greg root.

I live at 212 South Moody Avenue, unit number 2.

I'm a member of the Courier City Oscawana neighborhood

association and also the president of the neighborhood

association.

You just heard more testimony today from Mr. Bentley

regarding a field house and has been provided again with

some last minute information that we haven't had proper time

to review.

So I urge you to carefully compress the accuracy of

everything.

I want to give you a couple examples of why I say this.

On June 27th Mr. Bentley told you that his client

entered into four lease agreements for washing parking

within a thousand feet of the establishments and these

totals should be four spaces.

Problem is what he didn't tell you on June 27th was none

of those leases were valid.

Mr. Bentley also told us that they obtained a letter from

Safeway stating that Safeway would provide all 74 spaces

within 500 feet of the subject property.

The problem with that is, with the letter from Mr. Ryan




Flaherty of Safeway parking did not say is that Safeway

would provide all 74 spaces that were required.

I hope you read that letter carefully because did he not

state in that letter that he would provide all 74 parking

spaces.

Why not?

Because quite frankly, I don't believe there are 74

available parking spaces on permitted city lots that are

within 500 linear feet of the property that are available at

the time he wants to run a business, including starting at

4:00 in the afternoon.

Tim Glisson requested a copy of the master parking lot and

location, and the city heard from Mr. Cotton the other day,

and Mr. Cotton told Mr. Glisson that he was unable to

provide.

On June 27, Mr. Bentley said that his client anticipated of

0% of his customers to be walkup traffic from the

neighborhood, based on historic numbers, he's determined

that Hyde Park Village, 31.

The applicant and his attorney didn't provide any

substantial competent evidence to support this claim.

There wasn't any data from any legit I am surveys.

So where are the historic numbers?

And how were they derived?

On the 27th of June, Mr. Bentley stated that if the




proposed establishments violation any one of the conditions

on the site plan the city can revoke their permit.

That is probably true.

But I ask the council, what is the real practicality of

enforcing valet parking compliance?

Does the city periodically check on this right now?

I doubt it.

What would the city do if I called at 9:30 at night that

they were not parking cars within 1,000 feet of their

location and what is the likelihood that someone could com

come out and see what the violation is if I made that call?

How do they go about doing this?

I would submit to you from a reality standpoint this is an

enforceable condition.

And last but not least let's talk about this family oriented

restaurant.

Okay?

An established outdoor deck almost twice the size of the

interior of the building, is that really a likely candidate

to be a family oriented restaurant?

Does a family oriented restaurant need to stay open till

1:00 in the morning on Monday and Tuesday and 3:00 on

Wednesday and what is the likelihood that the Jimmy buffet

is going to be heard on an outdoor deck Friday or Saturday

night with the current high levels generated by places like




World of Beer that are less than 100 feet of this

establishment.

Please don't vote to permit this special use permit.

Thank you.

02:40:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Next, please.

02:40:13 >> Evelyn Yates, are you here?

Thank you.

And Beth Garcia?

Thank you.

Two additional minutes, please.

02:40:37 >> John Jones, 1704 west Jetton Avenue. I'm with the

historic Hyde Park.

Our neighborhood association stands in opposition to this

petition in support of Courier City.

And I would like to point out that to date I don't believe

petitioner has really shown his case.

He hasn't provided the facts.

He has provided statements.

Most of what he's facing is self-inflicted.

Whether or not it's the most onerous effort against an

applicant on zoning issues is immaterial.

The fact is that the zoning code is there, and he's being

held to the zoning code.

Nobody went out and reinvented zoning in order for him to




get approval.

All we ask is that he abide by that code.

Staff is stating that this is inconsistent with city code,

specifically 27.283.2 and .7, 27.132, which is parking.

The first one was off-site parking.

27.283.3 with regard to the leases, and separation of 250

feet from the nearest residential and other alcoholic

beverage serving enterprises, which is 27.13 to B.1. B.C.

So all we are asking is that he stay within the frame of

that.

You have heard that there are other uses, which pointed out

that this would be the only use that would be compatible

with this spot, I think in an earlier hearing, and we have

seen there are other options out there from hair salons to

attorneys to what have you.

Even if eliminates the outside area, it will have enough

space left over for a viable operation at 2400 square feet.

There are other locations there that were pointed out that

are within that range.

Certainly the shoppa lot, the attorney's office.

And the deck is another self-imposed issue.

He's looking for that to increase the number of people that

he can support by adding over two-thirds more space to the

facility, which is taking away from the ability to park.

He could get more parking in there.




And those also adding more parking requirements.

I guess another question here, can the valet services

actually provide the parking without long-term leases?

Are they duplicating the spaces that they are saying that

they have in the sense that they are offering that same

space to more than one establishment at the same time?

That's not acceptable under 283, but I don't remember the

exact cite.

The point is that there are alternative uses.

Even for the applicant.

The parking doesn't work within this area.

It's going to create problems with having people running

through the residential neighborhood.

Valet parking is based on speed, the ability to get the car

to the parking space and get back quickly to take care of

the next person.

The way that he's going to have to come out of there is

because Howard is a one-way street is to turn right.

I believe most of those spaces are to the south rather than

the north so he's going to have to go up, turn around, go

back down Armenia and get to wherever they park these cars.

And then rush back.

So the question becomes, are they going to do that by going

through the residential area, come back out on Howard,

turning back up into Courier City, and then going back




towards Swann?

Or are they going to go the long way to get to it?

We don't believe that he's met the requirements for this

application.

And we would respectfully request that you deny this

application as proposed.

Thank you.

02:45:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Next, please.

02:45:18 >> Jeff ZAMPITELLA, north Ashley drive.

For six years prior to living in SkyPoint I lived in Hyde

Park and I loved it.

I want to tell you why I moved, for exactly this reason.

I have a unique perspective in that I lived within one block

of this subject property for those six years.

I started at the Madison SoHo.

I went to the east side of Howard on Westland.

And then I finally moved to Tampania, which is not protected

as part of the permit parking, and I had enough.

All around where I was living on Tampania, which is two

blocks from this subject property, there were valet lots in

the heart of Florida and all around.

And I just got tired of the constant weekend traffic.

And I didn't want to live in Ybor City anymore.

If you have been to -- I lived in Ybor City 15 years ago.

For that reason -- my wife still works in Hyde Park.




We have good friends in Hyde Park.

I don't go over there as much as I'd like to, for this very

reason.

So I think to offer another wet zone -- or to offer this

type of zoning would be contrary to what Hyde Park wants,

the neighborhood needs, and the desires of everybody that's

spoken before me.

I ask that you turn this down today.

Thank you very much.

02:46:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.

Next, please.

02:46:52 >> Jason McCarty.

I'm the CO, president of 717 parking.

Listening to several residents today talk about parking, if

it's valet parking to the district is important to us as

well.

When mark and Joe came to see me as relates to valet parking

service --

02:47:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Just a second, Mr. McCarty.

Mrs. Mulhern has a concern.

02:47:18 >>MARY MULHERN:
You have an interest in this, right?

Your company has an interest in it?

02:47:23 >> I don't really have an interest.

I'm a service operator just like safe way.

02:47:29 >> But you would get business if this is approved?




02:47:31 >> Yes, ma'am.

02:47:31 >> So then you do have an interest.

02:47:33 >> Okay.

02:47:34 >>MARY MULHERN:
I think we need to have that disclosed, or

should he be part of the petitioner's case?

02:47:41 >> The question came up if he was represented by Mr. Bentley

as being there on behalf of the petitioner.

And so it's council's discretion as to how they wish to

characterize it.

If it's characterized as part of the rebuttal, or --

02:48:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If I may, chair, one of the problems with

having him talk to public comment as part of the case, I

think, is that it means he's got a second bite during public

comment to talk about this particular issue when he already

has admitted that there is a financial interest.

I know Mr. Bentley is probably going to say it's okay for

him to say it because he's a citizen of the city.

But to me I think that we are playing a little very

dangerous game here where anybody that has a financial

interest is going to be able to speak regardless.

If he wants to put him as part of it, ask him and did speak

during his opening remarks.

So to me, I think if you want to have one, that's fine.

If you want to have the other it's fine.

I don't think you can have both.




That's my own opinion.

02:48:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Mr. Chairman, if you wish, if you view

this as being part of the petitioner's rebuttal you can ask

that he hold his remarks.

02:48:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Petitioner is going to have five minutes

at the end.

He can bring that up.

That's my opinion to clear the record.

Yes, ma'am.

02:49:02 >> Before I get started, could we learn what the properties

are that were in that letter?

I noticed that Mr. Bentley just said blah-blah-blah, or

whatever.

He didn't really tell us what those properties were.

02:49:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
The locations are 120/122 South Howard

Avenue, 204 South Howard Avenue, 609 South Howard Avenue and

533 South Howard Avenue.

02:49:39 >>HARRY COHEN:
Was your question were those --

02:49:42 >> I think some of those are businesses that are open during

the same hours that he's open.

And since we didn't get to see that, we can't --

02:49:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Let me just ask this to clear this and

move this thing along.

I would like to ask the petitioner, are these addresses you

stated, the four locations, please put whatever is there now




and bring it back and we can speak on it.

If we wait -- I don't want to open another meeting.

I have got other hearings.

I have people here since 9:00 in the morning.

02:50:14 >> Can you tell us right now what businesses?

02:50:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'm asking you now if you can do it, sir.

02:50:22 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
The one that would know these is the owner,

717.

So they should be the ones to tell us who these are.

02:50:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
He's got it right there.

02:50:37 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Was that it?

02:50:43 >>MARK BENTLEY:
Here is the city zoning map.

All four locations are zoned CG, 1, 2, 3, 4.

Here is the first one.

Radiant baseball.

North Howard, that's 120 Howard.

The second one is -- I'm sorry.

The second is 204 South Howard.

Hyde Park.

Lounge.

We have five-year leases, no termination clause.

The next one, 717.

We call it the YBO parking lot, 609 South Howard.

As you can see, it's got a pretty significant parking lot.

The next one is you all know the whaley's plaza, TOTO's




restaurant.

And you can see the parking here, and also there's parking

to the rear under the control of 717.

So collectively we are required to have 74 spaces on-site.

But there would be four locations, we have a lot more than

71.

And if you have any specific questions concerning those

other locations, Jason will be up here in a second.

Thank you.

02:52:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Ma'am?

02:52:18 >> Thank you for that.

I appreciate.

That my name is April black.

I live at 306 south Albany, which is approximately just two

blocks east of that.

So I would be right behind it, basically, or it would be out

my front door.

I have been sworn.

I see the valet situation as a safety issue because we are

going to have a lot of running back and forth between these

properties.

And some of the properties that I needed clarification on, I

think like Whaley's, I don't know if you guys try to go to

chipolte or any of the things in there, it's hard to get a




parking place.

Basically it's already taken.

Those things are open till 10:00 at night.

So I don't know how we are going to free up 71 spaces when

those spaces have cars in them already.

But it is a safety issue.

So you run back and forth.

If they go north down Howard, they are going to hit -- if

they go north they are going to hit Kennedy.

If they go a little farther north before they get to

Kennedy, they are going to hit the other one-way street,

Cleveland going the other way.

These guys are going to be running around in the street.

It's also pedestrian-dense.

So we are concerned about that.

We are concerned about them taking the cars down my street,

down Westland.

We are concerned about that.

We are definitely concerned about that.

But we are also concerned about that noise.

My question to you is, do you know how many spaces you have

already waived?

Do you know how many of those 19 businesses have spaces that

have been waived?

Nobody can tell me he that.




Those spaces are waived, we can't get those back.

They might be hopping from bar to bar.

But look how many spaces are already waived.

We are going to waive another 71?

Come on.

It's time to say no.

Please.

Thank you.

02:54:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.

Next, please.

02:54:20 >> Alysse Myer, west Bristol Avenue.

I am here as a resident of Bristol Avenue which shoots right

off of South Howard Avenue.

I represent my street Bristol Avenue.

We have over 22 homes on the street.

I just want to give you for the record a Tampa PD record of

the address of 1611 West Swann Avenue which is the Irish 31

bar which the petitioner has an interest in.

Since November 18th, 2011 to April 12, 2013, there were

22 music disturbances, three general disturbances, 13 alarm

intrusions, and this year, I believe in February, there was

one liquor law violation.

I did not have time to check into that liquor law violation

for the record.

Thank you very much.




02:55:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.

Next, please.

02:55:13 >> Mary Bailey, green acres.

(off microphone).

02:55:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
If you will hold off for a second so I can

ask if Del Acosta is here.

Thank you.

And Roberta bayer.

Thank you.

Two additional minutes.

02:55:37 >> I live at 810 south Packwood Avenue in historic Hyde

Park.

I serve takes membership director on the board.

You heard from us on May 16th.

Our board voted to oppose this issue we have kept current

with the issue and we recently issued another letter

opposing this project.

This project remains a wolf in sheep's clothing.

This is a project that was conceived as an outdoor bar.

It remains essentially so.

As a family friendly restaurant until 3 a.m. and asking for

all kind of waivers that encroach upon our lives.

Listen, I was a successful businesswoman for 28 years.

I appreciate all the effort and entrepreneurialism.

I reward that.




You have to play by the rules specific to the contact.

I put a lot of money and hard work into acquiring my

property, renovating it, improving it, countless volunteer

hours into my neighborhood.

We put a lot of work into protecting our neighborhood.

Please don't grant this project that threatens our way of

life and our safety.

I was very particular choosing Tampa.

In the interest of time I won't list the 13 different places

I have lived or how much I put into researching and picking

Hyde Park, because it's the lifestyle that I wanted to

invest in, and have been there 19 years.

It's summarily unfair to wave the rules and provide the

context for what we choose to call home.

We object on specific ground.

Number one, parking.

Lots of discussion about parking here.

A lot of -- I don't want to repeat everything.

There's some of these leases are short-term.

Some of these parking spaces are businesses that are not

exclusive.

As we know leases aren't enforceable.

The valet parking is going to create havoc, up on the

sidewalk, into neighborhood streets as they shuttle back and

forth.




It's not a good solution.

Number two, separation.

The code requires separation from other businesses selling

alcohol as well as this project is in violation of those.

Now, I understand that sometimes other businesses in that

area have not been held to that standard.

But enough is enough.

That's like saying we need to get pulled over for speeding,

officer, you can't give me a ticket because the guy in front

was speeding.

Doesn't work that way.

Just not how it works.

Number three.

Noise on the deck.

I understand it's hard to enforce noise ordinances.

I was here when the petitioner presented their consultant

about the noise survey.

If my grandmother was still alive she would have called it

fried bologna.

There's no way you can put 300 people on the deck with

plified music and tell me it's not going to raise the

noise level to those residents that are so close by.

Number four, safety.

Thoroughfares that we must use to get to our home.

It is already insane for traffic and very dangerous.




I used to travel for my work and routinely come home late on

Thursday night from Tampa international.

Cabbies will not go down South Howard on Thursday night

because they are afraid someone who is overimbibed and

stumbling from one bar to the next wander in front of the

cab.

My husband and I had date night.

He woo couldn't go down South Howard.

It is too danger dangerous.

We do not need more danger on South Howard.

Lastly, I will close with the issue about other feasible

uses.

Others have spoken to this.

There are many successful beauty salons, professional

offices, restaurants that many of us frequent.

We could actually use a parking lot.

So please, City Council, do not approve this project.

It is the wrong thing for this space.

Thank you very much for your time.

02:59:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Anyone else in the audience who has not spoken at this time

regarding this item, item number 64?

V-12-67.

Petitioner, you heard the concerns.

You have five minutes.




02:59:34 >>MARK BENTLEY:
Thank you very much.

I will make this very brief.

Jason, take a couple minutes.

02:59:43 >> Listen, I appreciate -- Jason McCarty for the record.

I have been sworn in.

I will make this really simple.

I have been in the parking business for 23 years.

Valet operators not only in the southeast, I have operations

in 17 states.

I have 4,000 that work for me. My twin brother and I

started the business several years ago, take a lot of pride

in what we do.

When Jay and mark came to see me and were concerned about

providing excellent service, parking, we put together a plan

that would work well not only for the community but as

relates to complying with current code.

The parking lots that we have issued here today will meet

the code.

I think you said 71 or 74, give or take.

I would also like to say that we have been running valet

parking with right-of-way permits for over 20 years in the

city. We worked with Debby Harrington and bill Flynn and

the whole City of Tampa.

Why it's important is we understand what the requirement is

as relates to the permitting.




We look at what the staff levels seem to be, what the

parking ratios need to be, what the correct traffic flow is.

We are not going to go through the neighborhoods, or park on

the city rights-of-way, and block their driveways.

We have secured parking spaces for this primary use only,

okay?

That's very important.

Because at the end of the day with all the residents in the

area, the bottom line is our company, we have secured the

parking spaces to provide and meet the code.

And I will a sure you as the president of this company we

have done that, based on my reputation, being in the parking

business over 20 years.

And that's about it.

We also run valet parking for Chief, World of Beer, Hyde

Park cafe, Kennedy, old Hyde Park village, TIMPANAS, and

those are operating 10, 15 years.

Never complained.

Never a problem.

Never parked on a city right-of-way.

Always secured parking.

Let me mention quick about permitting as it relates to a

different use.

Anytime this gets converted has to deal with the parking

issue.




I commend mark and Jaye to be able to offer valet parking to

help meet this use and this requirement.

And again I am here to answer any other questions four.

03:01:56 >> Thank you, Jason.

Just kind of briefly, we beat this thing about ten hours, I

think, since we have gone through the process.

In any event, concerning Mr. Michelini's testimony, and I

think you can take that for what it's worth.

He represents another bar owner.

So it's kind of a disgruntled bar owner from our perspective

that's not going to be impacted at all by what we are

proposing.

This is a restaurant and keeps being referred to as a bar.

And that's not the case.

[ Laughter ] well, that's not the case.

51/49.

You have all seen this graphic.

Contrary to the testimony today.

Every use between Horatio -- you can use Chocolat for

parking.

The attorney's office for parking, through the city's design

exception process.

So that entire strip relates to bars or restaurants.

Final couple things here.

Here again, this is a condition, if he would don't fulfill




under your codes you can pull the plug on Mr. MIZE's

business and he's making a commitment to abide by these

regulations in your code.

We have been going at this for a long time.

Each time, the city suggests something, we have jumped

through hoops.

The last hearing, the only issue was whether or not we have

the ability to accommodate sufficient parking through the

valet process, which we do.

We met with the city.

They told us what to do.

Valley parking in the City of Tampa.

We needed 74 spaces.

There are more lots that Jason has that aren't in that

letter that can accommodate a lot more parking and they are

all zoned commercial.

So we respectfully request that you approve our petition.

And one final thing about this kind of cheap shot at Irish

31.

Number one, that's not relevant.

Number two, Mr. MIZE has never been cited over there

regardless of what was indicated.

So Jay wanted me to make that clear to council.

Thanks for your time.

We really appreciate it.




03:04:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Mulhern?

03:04:14 >>MARY MULHERN:
I don't know which of you want to answer

this.

But Mr. Bentley, you just said that there are other parking

lots.

But your letter says these four addresses that you are going

to be providing the parking spaces.

03:04:26 >>MARK BENTLEY:
Those are sufficient.

But here is the situation.

We can use those and fulfill the parking requirements B.you

eight months from now when Jay goes to get his permit, okay,

the city transportation department and 717, some discussion,

how about using this lot, et cetera, et cetera?

So Jason can receive testify he has other location bus those

are adequate to fulfill our client's requirements.

03:04:56 >>MARY MULHERN:
But if we grant the waiver of parking then

how do we enforce that?

03:05:00 >> Here is what you are granting.

03:05:02 >>MARY MULHERN:
How do we enforce that?

03:05:04 >> He shall at all times have valet parking.

That's it.

I presented a letter saying we are going to valet at these

specific locations.

Okay?

Three years from now when I we might find a lot that's




closer and get a permit for that and your city attorney has

already told you that she can enforce that regulation like

any other condition.

03:05:24 >>MARY MULHERN:
I guess -- let me ask Mr. McCarty about

this.

Or whoever has those maps if you could put them up.

I'm in those parking lots very often, and it's hard for me

to picture.

I think you need to show us, where are those 717 spaces?

You want us to trust you and believe you that you have the

spaces.

I would like to see them.

Because EVOS parking lots are shared by numerous buildings,

businesses that are open at night.

03:06:02 >> Yes.

And I would like to address through the permitting process

through the city, part of the requirement is they have to be

properly zoned, and Gloria Moreda is still here, I believe.

She can confirm that.

And certain number of parking spaces.

I don't care if it's tympanos or the city right-of-way has

to meet a permitted parking lot for those number of spaces.

As Mr. Bentley says if we don't comply with that with the

operator, they get shut down as a business.

03:06:28 >>MARY MULHERN:
All right.




I guess you have answered my question.

Let me ask you another question related to the valet

parking.

Can we see that diagram that Gloria put up there of how the

valet staging is going to work on Azeele?

03:06:44 >> Okay.

So is the valet parking that cut-out, next to the street?

So then the sidewalk is unimpeded?

03:07:15 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
Based on the available area on this

drawing to scale.

Based on the available area adjacent to the property within

the right-of-way, Jonathan Scott, our engineer in

transportation planning, based upon the technical standards

that we have, at the state level and the local level, the

distance from the end of pavement and from the south side

and the intersection with the alley, there is 45 feet there

available.

Then comes out to that distance so it's basically a two-car

area.

You can see two cars in that -- queue two cars in that area.

03:07:53 >>MARY MULHERN:
Right.

But isn't Azeele a two-way street -- a two-laned street?

03:07:59 >> It's a 24-foot to the curb.

There's 12-foot lanes essentially.

03:08:05 >> So there's 12-foot lanes.




Is there parking on Azeele?

03:08:11 >> Part of the residential parking permit area, which is

another part of our concern.

On the opposite side of the alley, residential.

The front along Howard is commercial.

And predominantly residential.

So immediately behind it starts the residential parking

area.

03:08:30 >>MARY MULHERN:
I have a question for you, Ms. Coyle, since

you are there.

And I don't know if we talked about this at the first

reading.

But this is the South Howard overlay district.

And part of the intent was to make it pedestrian -- I mean,

one of the biggest things was that it be pedestrian

friendly.

Now, the focus -- when you read it is that Howard nodes to

be pedestrian friendly.

But now you are talking about Azeele, the side street, which

is a residential street, which -- when you have 395, 295,

sorry, patrons, 71 cars, and they are all going to be going,

you know, at best if they use valet parking, going through

there.

When does the South Howard overlay component come into

consideration when they go through land use and planning?




03:09:33 >> Permitting, maybe renovations.

If they actually do all of this work on the site plan, it

will more than likely be triggered.

That's why they actually have them put a note on the plan,

that at any time they do some of the improvements, the

physical improvements shown in this, that they will obtain

any necessary variances or design review for the SoHo

overlay.

03:09:57 >> What they are asking for in the site plan, which is

asking us by right to give them --

03:10:02 >> They are not asking you for approval of the overlay.

They are asking for alcohol sales at this location.

03:10:07 >>MARY MULHERN:
Right.

But they will have to meet SoHo overlay.

03:10:11 >> If they are required to comply, they are required to

comply --

03:10:16 >> But is that taken -- my question four, is that taken into

consideration at the point where they come in as the

petitioner with these plans?

It already is under the -- so what happens, if anything

comes in front of you?

I don't understand why it wouldn't already be a part of the

thinking, and the recommendations of the planning

department.

03:10:44 >> Well, it is.




We put them on notice if there's any overlay and it looks

like they are going to trigger the overlay requirements

potentially, but that happens at a different place.

It doesn't happen through an alcohol permit.

It Happed happens to the actual physical changes to the

property.

03:10:57 >> But we are being asked to approve --

03:11:00 >> You are being asked to approve alcohol.

03:11:02 >> Alcohol sales, based on what they are saying about

transportation requirements.

So if the transportation plans that they are showing City

Council are not consistent with what they are going to have

to face when they come for permitting, it seems to me that

that ought to be addressed to us, and to the petitioner,

before they come.

03:11:25 >> That's why we are objecting.

03:11:27 >> Okay.

So is that part of your objection?

03:11:32 >> Our objection is that he would don't find a waiver of 71

parking spaces.

03:11:36 >> Okay.

Thank you.

03:11:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I don't know if we used all the time for

petitioner rebuttal.

We had some questions.




We did?

Okay.

The clerk tells me the time was used completely in the

rebuttal.

So I need a motion to close 64.

Unless somebody wants to discuss it.

Mrs. Montelione?

03:12:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Just one comment.

And, you know, I don't know how this is going to go with my

fellow council members.

But all I can think in the back of my head -- and no offense

to the fellow in parking, but what if we have public

transportation?

If we had a good public transportation we wouldn't all be

worried about, where am I going to put my car?

And I know that's how you make your living, but really, I

mean, if you go to a lot of cities who are historic in

nature, who have, you know, very narrow streets, areas of

Boston come to mind, areas of Atlanta come to mind -- I

mean, there are a lot of places who deal with this every

day.

And it seems like we as a City of Tampa are going through

these growing pains, because we don't have adequate public

transportation.

And a lot of these neighborhood businesses that want to




open, whether it's a bar or restaurant or a retail shop or

whatever comes before us, God knows if it's a medical

office, and you have to have umpteen number of parking

spaces for your clients, we are struggling with parking

every single day, or at least every Thursday when we do

rezoning applications, and we are caught at that juncture

between, you know, having historic neighborhood with spots

that were never built to be businesses, they were built as

homes back then.

And one thing that struck me during the public comment --

and I believe Mr. Michelini is the one who said it, is that

people come into the area, they want to locate their

business there, and they tear down properties to put up

parking lots.

So we are losing historic structures.

We are using the character of our streets because they have

to tear down a building.

Maybe not the one that they operate in.

Maybe they have to tear down the one next door so they can

put the parking lot next door.

And that's very sad to me.

I mean, it's very sad that we have to tear down buildings to

put in a parking lot.

Again, no offense.

But I think that's where not only this application but many




other applications that we hear running into trouble,

because a lot of our neighborhoods have skinny, small

streets that weren't built to be business corridors.

They have evolved into business corridors.

And now we don't have the parking.

I don't know if that's going to mean anything to the

applicant or to the neighbors.

There's not really, I think, a good -- there's no good

answer to this right now.

03:15:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.

Mr. Bentley, I want to be as fair as I can.

After your five minutes were up, there were some comments

made by staff.

So I want to give you time to rebuttal those.

I just want a clear record.

03:15:20 >>MARK BENTLEY:
I understand.

I appreciate the opportunity.

Here again I want to bring to council's attention that a lot

of the other locations around there, they also utilize valet

parking so it's not unique specifically to our client's

proposed business.

I just want to say here again, we have going at this for a

long time and the client and I really appreciate the time,

consideration, effort you have put into this.

I know it's a really difficult situation and it raised a lot




of issues, more local perspective in terms of what's going

on in parking issues and the like.

So here again, our mission was to come back on this one

narrow issue here and confirm we have valet.

And I don't know what more we can tell you.

We have done everything we could.

Thank you very much.

03:16:08 >> Appreciate it very much all of those who spoke for or

against.

I believe this hearing had all its necessary ingredients for

council to make a decision.

And I need a motion to close.

03:16:18 >> So moved.

03:16:19 >> Second.

03:16:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mr. Cohen to close.

Second by Mr. Reddick.

Further discussion by council members?

All in favor of the motion to close?

Opposed?

The hearing is now closed.

What's the pleasure of the council?

No pleasures?

03:16:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I move the ordinance.

03:16:40 >> I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione to move the ordinance.

Do I hear a second?




Motion then dies for lack of a second.

03:16:47 >> You have to read the ordinance.

03:16:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
It didn't get a second. So let me say

this.

Whether you are for or against -- and in this particular

case, I like for the record to be very, very clear, and

very, very straightforward, and please state the reasons

why -- not voting that way, I'm not asking that, but the

reason you are moving or not moving this ordinance one way

or the other.

Mrs. Capin?

03:17:18 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I just want to say that I was one of looking

to the condition and to the leases.

But the problem that I'm having, you know, there is a lot of

parking issues on Howard Avenue.

And that's why we have gone around and round and around.

When the owners of 717 stated that they do not own these

properties, that they lease them, those an issue, because

you are building on top of a house of cards, because you

have a lease and a lease and a lease.

And so, yes, the lease in the condition that the lease is

your lease is ended, and the petitioner has to find another

lease, or it is one of the conditions.

But you know what?

We have had issues where we have had places that there have




been murders, and we haven't been able to close them down,

not from here.

Not from here.

Law enforcement has done their efforts.

So I know that this young man is a very good businessman,

and I'm very sorry that, unfortunately, the lease is on top

of a lease on top of a lease, and that is very difficult to

enforce, and to prove.

So I will not be supporting this.

I'm very sorry.

03:19:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Let me say this.

I have been informed that we are going to have to reopen the

hearing momentarily.

There's a site plan that was -- and the correct site plan is

here and I want to row open the hearing.

Motion to reopen the hearing by Mr. Suarez, second by Mrs.

Montelione.

All in favor of the motion?

Opposed nay?

The ayes have it unanimously.

Ms. Coyle, off corrected site plan that somehow is the one

we need to put into the record.

I correct?

03:19:39 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
Yes, sir.

There was a specific condition, I got the condition -- I




wasn't here at the last reading.

I apologize.

I requested the actual conditions that were placed in the

record by council, directed the applicant to address his

conditions on the site plan.

I got those from Mrs. Marshall.

She sent them over to me.

Typically they are black and white.

You direct them.

I read them on the plan.

This one was slightly blended.

So I went ahead and certified it but it was missing one

piece since the parking had to be within 1,000 feet for the

valet spaces.

So that's the correction that I made and initialed it on the

certified plan.

It was an error on my part yesterday when I certified it.

I missed that piece.

03:20:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
So you do have the corrected site plan

for this file?

03:20:27 >> Yes.

You could approved it otherwise.

03:20:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I understand but I want the record to be

110,000 percent right.

03:20:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
For the record, Mr. Chairman, irrespective




of what council does, I want the corrected certified site

plan to be what's in the clerk's file.

03:20:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I understand.

And she spoke.

I want to give you the last word.

03:20:47 >>MARK BENTLEY:
Wait a second, Jason.

Excuse me.

Here the way this works is we have leases that meat the city

code requirement in terms of form by the city attorney for

five years on two of those locations without a termination

clause.

They were executed in June.

Jason's company, and the way the valet rules work, is they

lease property, like Safeway, any other valet company, okay?

Then we enter into a contract.

And I also want to remind City Council that when the martini

bar got approved in 2010, unanimously, they did the same

thing.

They presented a letter to the City Council from 717 saying

we will accommodate the required parking for the martini

bar, which is in the realm of 170 spaces, and they got

approved on that basis, too.

So we would think that our client is entitled to the same

consideration and treatment as council gave a similar

location, which Jason was involved in.




03:21:50 >> I would just like to say up and down Howard Avenue and

throughout the city --

03:21:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Excuse me.

I need your name again.

03:21:57 >> Jason McCarty.

I have been sworn in.

Throughout the entire city, not every parking operator

and/or bar owner is going to own that parking lot.

They are going to have to you go through some type of lease

agreement long-term.

I just want to say that for the record.

Because I can't tell you, unfortunately some of the stuff we

own -- and it's usually not the norm, is my point.

I just want to make that for the record.

Thank you.

03:22:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Mrs. Montelione and Mrs. Mulhern.

03:22:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.

And when we talk about the parking, you know, the idea that

you own the lot or not, there are lots of businesses that

operate and never own the property they operate in.

And it's immaterial to whether or not they own it, and they

have a contractual agreement.

And when I was lease administrator for the NCNB national

bank, we didn't own the properties.




We land leased them.

So we never owned the buildings that, you know, these banks

operated.

And I bet if you surveyed all the banks that are out there

right now, 90% of those banks are not owned by the banking

company.

They are leased.

They are leased property.

So whether or not you own the property, you know, to me is

immaterial.

And the other thing, you do kind of have a corner on the

market there with the parking in South Howard, and Safeway

you mentioned as well.

They also engage in the parking business.

And a lot of those patrons probably don't -- every time they

go from one establishment to another -- because most people

do.

That's why you see all the people, you know, that creates

what has been turned termed a dangerous situation with

people walking and crossing the street -- is because they

are going from one establishment to the other.

They are not getting in their car and driving down the block

and having to find another parking space and revalet their

car every time.

So the businesses who share the parking lots, they are




patronizing more than one business and never having to move

their car.

And the last thing, I know when I have gone to places

before, you go into a lot, and it says valet parking only.

And you can't -- even if you are going to one of the

businesses that are in that strip center, you are restricted

from parking in a certain part of the parking lot because

folks like 717 or Safeway have leased a part of the parking

lot and it's clearly blocked off.

It says valet parking only.

So if you have a large parking lot, there may be businesses

there who are located and operating there and there may be

other businesses that are leasing a part of the parking lot

for their valet.

So I think all the struggles that we are having over the

valet parking and, you know, how you are accommodating all

of the patrons for all of the businesses with the same valet

company, they have been doing this a long time.

They know it's kind of like -- I don't want to say dominos,

but a game where you slide, you know, one peg down and slide

it over and slide another peg up and slide that one over,

slide another one down.

They are not having to park every single person for every

establishment all at the same time.

Because people are going to all different establishments and




only parking their car once.

But again it all comes down to where am I going to put my

car?

03:25:39 >> I would like a document into the record and then these

the end of it.

03:25:47 >> Just state what that is for the council.

03:25:50 >>MARK BENTLEY:
This is a site plan approval for another

alcoholic beverage special use permit in 2010 where valet

was an approved condition.

03:26:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I can see where this is going.

Any other council members?

Mrs. Mulhern.

03:26:15 >>MARY MULHERN:
Yes.

Mr. Bentley, will you refresh my memory?

Where is the martini bar?

Or where was it, if that's what you are submitting?

Where is it?

He's Smith it.

I think he brought it up.

I would like to know where it is.

03:26:30 >>MARK BENTLEY:
I know it's on Franklin Street.

03:26:33 >> Downtown?

03:26:33 >> Yes, ma'am.

03:26:36 >> Mr. McCarty does the valet.

To answer your question, Mrs. Mulhern, before you cut me




off --

03:26:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I didn't cut you off.

You said Franklin Street.

And I know where Franklin streets is at.

So does the judge.

03:26:50 >>MARY MULHERN:
Please give it to him, Mr. Bentley.

03:26:59 >>MARK BENTLEY:
912.

03:27:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
912 what?

You want to get specific.

I want to get specific.

What's the zip code?

[ Laughter ]

03:27:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion to close.

03:27:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion to close by Mr. Suarez.

Second by Mr. Reddick.

All in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye.

Opposed nay.

The ayes have it unanimously.

03:27:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Make a motion to deny the petition.

I would like to make a motion to deny petition V-12-267 as

revised on 6-12-2013 and presented for second reading today,

understood Land Development Coordination, general regulation

requirements of code, under section 27-283 .2, and 283.7,

that the amount of waiver requested for parking spaces from

74 to 3 is excessive according to our own standards.




03:27:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Mr. Suarez.

I have a second by Mr. Reddick.

Discussion, Ms. Mulhern?

03:28:03 >>MARY MULHERN:
Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to the motion to deny some

specifics within our code.

Under general requirement section 27-237 through 242, and

all districts at the time of any increased intensity or any

other use or change of use establishing off-street parking

spaces shall be provided in accordance with the current

code.

That's not happening here.

We have the testimony of legal that the valet parking

required is not an enforceable replacement for the actual

parking spaces.

Under transportation, transportation found it inconsistent.

Understood general standards 27-269, number A-1, the use

will ensure the public health, safety and general welfare if

located where proposed and operated according to the plan

submitted.

I think because of the nature of the design of this

establishment, as opposed to the way that the South Howard

overlay district is supposed to be designed, normally, in

the back, Howard Avenue that fronts the front of the

establishment, and behind the establishment in the




commercial district, you would have the parking.

And that was the whole point behind that overlay, is that

parking would happen behind.

Not that there would be valet parking and movement of that

intensity on the street where you would create that traffic

on Azeele.

So I think those one of the problems.

Under number 3, the use is compatible with contiguous

surrounding property or the use of public necessity.

It may be compatible with the other bars surrounding it but

it is not compatible with the residential that is adjacent,

and it could have been if it had been designed without the

excessive amount of occupancy.

The use is in conformity with the Tampa comprehensive plan.

I can't imagine that adding another bar to what used to be a

mixed use urban village would fit in with the idea of

diversity of uses in a mixed use urban village.

And five, the use will not establish a precedent or

encourage more intensive or incompatible uses in the

surrounding area.

I think the fact that the attorney is trying to use

something from another neighborhood as a precedents for this

shows us that that's what happens when you approve waivers

of this magnitude, the next thing you know, you have

another -- you set a precedent in that particular




neighborhood.

So I don't think we need to set any more precedents for

extreme waivers of parking.

03:31:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.

Mr. Maker of the motion and seconder of the motion, do you

accept that?

03:31:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I do.

And one last, clear and competent substantial evidence of

the denial that the staff report be included as the reason

for the denial, also.

03:31:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anything else, counselor?

03:31:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Just that council member Mulhern was

making reference to the general standards in your revised

staff report dated 6-20.

Those were renumbered under your code.

So what you were referring to is presently section 27-129.

03:31:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.

Ms. Capin?

03:32:00 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Maybe after the vote.

It appears that this is going to -- I don't know how it's

going to go but it appears that it may be denied.

So I would like you to state conditions under which this can

be brought back to council.

03:32:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
If there are substantial changes?

Did you want to go through the litany of time frames?




I'm sorry.

03:32:40 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
Planning and development again.

Special use 2 permit shall include application an

application which has a substantially similar request

described in the application involving the same lands or any

portion thereof for 12 months.

City Council may determine if this period does not apply, if

a new special use application has addressed the grounds for

denial identified during the hearing.

So if he were to come back again for a restaurant, and have

a substantially similar list of waivers and conditions, we

wouldn't let it come back unless you granted them the

ability and made the finding that it was different enough.

03:33:22 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Substantially different?

03:33:24 >> Correct.

03:33:26 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Then would it come back if it came to you

with substantial differences?

03:33:29 >> That provision of the code is going to be revised soon to

be similar to the rezoning provision.

But it's the same criteria.

It's a substantially similar finding.

So if he were to come back and all of a sudden be a totally

different use and a different set of criteria for alcohol,

totally different parking reduction, if the parking

reduction at all, if it were something that were totally




different, then we would let it come forward.

But if it were substantially similar, which this property

doesn't have a lot of parking anyway, more than likely, it

would have to come to you to make that finding first the way

the code is drafted now, whether or not you allow it to come

back within 12 months.

Otherwise, 12 month hold.

03:34:15 >> Thank you very much.

03:34:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion for denial by Mr. Suarez,

second by Mr. Reddick with the additions that were included

both by Ms. Mulhern and the addition by Mr. Suarez.

All in favor of that motion for denial, please signify by

saying aye.

Opposed nay.

Motion denied unanimously.

Thank you very much for appearing all of you, both sides

Let me go back now to 75 and 76.

Mrs. Montelione, would you kindly do 75 and 76 so I can get

the department heads back where they need to be?

03:34:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Certainly.

Happy to do so.

I would like to move 75 and 76 for approval.

03:34:57 >> I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione 75 and 76 to move

those two resolutions, a second by Mr. Suarez on 75 and 76.

All in favor of the motion?




Opposed?

Motion passed unanimously.

Thank you both, gentlemen, for being here for such a long

period of time.

I appreciate it very much.

We go to item number 65.

65.

We need all this input here.

03:35:23 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Land development.

The site plan has been certified for V-13-74 staff has no

other comments.

03:35:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Is the petitioner near this case?

I believe this is the cheese shop that wants to sell wine to

the cheese?

Anyone in the audience care to speak on 65, V-13-74, please

come forward.

Anyone on 65, 65, 65.

I see no one coming.

I need a motion to close.

I have a motion to close by Mr. Cohen, second by Mr. Suarez.

All in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye.

Opposed nay.

The ayes have it unanimously.

Mr. Suarez, would you kindly take number 65?

03:36:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I move an answerer for second reading and




adoption.

He substitute ordinance for second reading and adoption.

An ordinance for bar, lounge, consumption on premises and

off premises package sales and making lawful the sale of

beer and wine at or from that certain lot, plot or tract of

land located at 3225 South MacDill Avenue, Tampa, Florida as

more particularly described in section 2, that all

ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict are repealed,

providing an effective date.

03:36:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Mr. Suarez.

Seconded by Mr. Cohen on 65.

V-13-74.

03:36:50 >>MARY MULHERN:
All in favor of the motion -- roll call

vote.

Vote and record.

03:36:54 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.

03:37:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay.

We go to item 66.

Yes, ma'am.

03:37:08 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
I'll be brief.

Planning and development.

The item before you for second reading is chicken as an

accessory use to single-family attached and detached.

The only question you have to answer is yes or no whether or

not you want them on second reading and I'm available for




any questions.

03:37:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Any questions by council members?

This is a public hearing on item 66.

Anyone in the audience to speak please come forward.

03:37:39 >> Good afternoon.

My name is Linda Patton, address 3415 west Ellicott street,

Tampa.

For nearly 45 years I have lived in this same home, and I

love the fact that it's everything Tampa has to offer.

When she was young, plaza terrace was young, well manicured,

welcoming all with a graceful smile.

She isn't as lovely now.

The bounce in her step disappeared.

Owners have moved on, passed away, or too old to work to

keep her as lovely as she once was.

However, this ordinance is one reason this once grateful

lady is showing her age and losing her luster.

We do not live in the country.

We live in the city by choice.

Because of the few of the rest of us living in single-family

homes have no desire to smell chicken droppings, and simply

have it because a few folks would like to raise their own

eggs.

That's what grocery stores are for, folks.




The problems mushroomed will come back to peck at you over

and over again, I promise.

My immediate neighbor has 15 chickens, two roosters and

newly hatched bunch of chicks.

Many chickens are caged.

Many are not.

They may not fly but they jump to the fence or lower

branches of the tree or my yard where my dogs have a heyday.

Keep dogs from hurting chicken is not a full-time

occupation.

The passing of the ordinance unlike the chickens have no

teeth behind to the regulate it.

Allowing chickens and roosters, it cannot be regulated, and

if it cannot be regulated, you cannot allow it.

Not to look over 6-foot tall fences to observe these foreign

animals, and please, they are farm animals, not pets.

You don't see people walking them on leashes, playing

toss-the-corncobb with them, or teaching them to fetch.

If they were pets you would ensure that they are licensed as

my pets are and inspected to be certain the number would not

exceed ordinance limitations.

Code cannot enter the backyard, only leaving a note that

will be ignored each time they leave one, and they will

leave three or four and then send citations, and that will

be ignored.




I hear roosters all day and into the night.

And I can't tell you how much I enjoy them waking me up on

my days off.

How lovely a backyard barbeque is with them crowing nonstop.

Nothing could be done and nothing is done.

How lovely those council members who live in condos or lucky

enough to will never be exposed to the problem.

My daughter who lives in a county subdivision and surrounded

by chickens and roosters, and again nothing is done about

it. Absolutely nothing.

We expect more from Tampa.

We expect to have a better quality of life.

And we expect our elected representatives to protect that

expectation, not throw it back into the bone yard to please

a few not the many.

Thank you.

03:40:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Next, please?

Sorry, sir, that lady was before you.

Ma'am?

Well, make up your mind.

Whoever stood up first.

03:40:59 >> (off microphone)

North Suwanee Avenue in Seminole Heights.

I have been sworn.




I thought the chicken issue was decided last June and didn't

realize it was coming back.

But last summer, I sent in a letter for specifics that I had

researched with the city looking at the issue of chickens.

They are here.

And how to create an ordinance that would not create a

nuisance for the neighbors, and have a way of enforcing it.

Yes, code enforcement is nuisance driven, as far as

complaint driven.

And I believe what we were talking about is Hens only, no

roosters.

A limit as far as based on the square footage of the

property.

We were talking one per thousand feet but not having 15.

And, yes, quite a few people have them, and they do consider

them as pets.

And it is a great way as far as the teaching element for the

children knowing where food comes from, knowing where your

own food comes from.

As well as helping with the cycle of life.

And other issues.

As far as the backyard barbecue, as far as I know the

chickens, you can't reach over to the neighbor's house and

grab one of those to throw on the grill.

But it would be nice to go forward with having Fenn -- Hens




only with the city.

So I hope you all press forward with that, with the points

brought forward at earlier hearings.

Thank you.

03:42:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Next.

03:42:40 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
I'm here on behalf of Dr. Lozette

Hernandez who had to leave earlier today, and she asked that

I speak on behalf of her grandmother, who lives at 3009 west

Kathleen street.

And the problem is that one of the neighbors has chickens at

3015 west Kathleen street, and they are not being contained

within the yard, so her question to the council for

consideration and to the staff is how is enforcement going

to be maintained for the containment of the chickens, if

it's a tenant as opposed to a homeowner, and who would be

responsible?

So they are asking that you consider that in your

deliberations on this ordinance.

And I respectfully request your assistance.

Thank you very much.

And good afternoon.

03:43:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.

I'll try to answer that.

If that's rental property, then the homeowner is the one




that's responsible.

That's my opinion.

I'm stickin' by it.

Yes, ma'am?

03:43:46 >> Susan Long, 920 east broad.

You know I'm opposed to this ordinance.

I have said it 20 times and you all are sick of hearing me.

The people across the street have four chickens the kids

brought home from school. They run all over the

neighborhood.

So the rental property down at the end of the street now

says, oh, we can have chickens. So they have two hens and a

rooster in their backyard.

I have spoken to code.

And code says there's no way to enforce it.

We aren't allowed to got in backyard.

We can't peek over the fence.

Running around outside.

By the time we get there, they are somewhere else.

There's absolutely no way so we aren't even going to try.

So you can quote all the code you want.

Once you put chickens there, they are anywhere they want to

be and as many as you want to have.

Thank you.

03:44:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anyone else in the audience care to speak




on item 66?

Let me ask the legal department something.

If this is to pass, and there's roosters back there, and

code enforcement can't go in, how do you get rid of them?

Send a drone in there or what?

03:44:52 >>JULIA MANDELL:
As you heard me say on many indication

occasions the burden of proof is on the local resident.

If we can't go on someone's property without getting some

kind of inspection, we would have to go Tourette court, get

an inspection warrant to get into the property.

Otherwise it would be very difficult to enforce the

provision, possibly because roosters, they do what roosters

do, which is squawk.

I mean, that would be an argument for the special

magistrate.

But obviously whenever you put in place a code, how you

enforce it and how you get behind to look in someone's

property can become an issue.

03:45:36 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Before you go, Mrs. Mandell.

In the case of a neighborhood, can code enforcement be

invited by a neighbor onto that person's property, and then

observe the chickens from their backyard?

03:45:56 >>JULIA MANDELL:
I'm not an expert on what you can have

admissible in a code enforcement case, but I would imagine

that would be acceptable.




03:46:03 >> By chance it was my neighbor, and they don't have

chickens, by the way, but you can't see the backyard from

standing in front of the house.

But if you come into my backyard, you can certainly see into

their backyard, chain link fences.

03:46:22 >> You can see from their backyard as an invitee from

another person's property, I imagine that would be

admissible.

03:46:31 >> Thank you.

So all one has to do when they make a code enforcement

complaint, give code enforcement the opportunity to enter on

onto their own property to observe the goings on in any the

neighbor's.

03:46:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Reddick?

03:46:47 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to legal.

Let me ask legal a question.

Is it legal to pass --

03:47:08 >>JULIA MANDELL:
There's two questions.

One is the ordinance on its face, legal, not vague, not

taking away anybody's due process rights.

On its face, and on its face is it enforceable?

Yes.

That doesn't necessarily mean how you go ahead and enforce

it, whether or not it is easily enforceable, whether or not




in any individual case you can get enough evidence to

enforce that.

I mean, everyone had the same issue associated with it.

It's how are you going to enforce it?

Same thing when you approve any kind of land use decision

with conditions.

That's always something we struggle with, something we all

struggle with.

And it's always an issue.

But the question in front of you and the question I can

answer today is on its face, this ordinance is legal, and

it's legally enforceable.

Whether or not in an individual case it would be a problem,

we can't worry about enacting ordinance at the point of

approving your ordinance.

03:48:10 >> Who is responsible?

03:48:14 >>JULIA MANDELL:
It would be code enforcement.

And potentially the Land Development Coordination folks

depending on how they provide that.

03:48:23 >>FRANK REDDICK:
So if a chicken is walking down the

street --

03:48:31 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
If I could, and the clerk will tell you

when, talking about the bird sanctuary issue, and I think

you asked for a report back.

I was going to work with legal on restructuring.




Because if a chicken is walking down the road or crosses the

road -- you knew I would put that in at some point, what

happens when the chicken crosses the road -- it's covered by

the bird sanctuary and those where the enforcement gets a

little gray.

Because we could certainly go to the person that he would

think is their chicken and say something but if they don't

claim it, it's a free roaming bird.

03:49:03 >> So if the chicken in this coop in the backyard, and the

chicken flies over into someone else's backyard, are you

telling me we are going to waste code enforcement time by

calling code enforcement and asking them to send somebody to

enforce this because somebody's chicken got loose?

Is that what we are saying here today?

03:49:31 >> What I would hope is between neighbors --

03:49:33 >> That won't happen.

03:49:34 >> But beyond that, if there is a complaint, throws a

complaint.

03:49:37 >> We have got all of these abandoned homes, all of these

overgrown lots, and this ordinance is discussing about a

chicken flying across somebody's fence, call code

enforcement.

03:49:50 >> And they have the best land development regulations we

have.

Call code enforcement.




The vast majority of them.

03:49:58 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Do you have a position for code

enforcement pertaining to these ordinances?

03:50:07 >> We have a group of code enforcement officers broken up by

geographical areas.

03:50:11 >> And they have been trained -- they have been trained to

catch chicken?

03:50:17 >> They are not actually allowed to catch chicken.

03:50:20 >> What is code enforcement going to do?

I mean, why are they going out there if you call code

enforcement?

What do they go out, scoop the chicken back up?

03:50:34 >> If you recall, the bird sanctuary regulation is on the

books.

If the chicken is not on private property and it's free

roaming on public land or public right-of-way, it is a

protect pro texted bird.

And that bird cannot be moved, changed, molested, in other

words, in any way by anybody.

03:50:53 >> So my last question is, what is their role?

If this relates to enforceable action.

03:51:05 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
If the chicken is on your property and

you want someone to deal with it --

03:51:09 >> Well, I don't want it.

I know what I am going to do it with.




You aren't going to see it again.

[ Laughter ]

03:51:19 >> That goes back to the dog comment.

But aside from that, if a neighbor does call about chickens,

whether it's noise or smell or chickens roaming around their

property that is not there's, as Ms. Mandell said, code

enforcement is going to evaluate, they are allowed to go --

they are going to go on property they are allowed to go

onto.

They won't go onto property they aren't allowed to.

They are going to listen to whatever people are saying and

try to figure it out.

And that's with any issue, not just chickens.

Dogs, cats.

03:51:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Quick question, Catherine.

I know I'm the only one that calls you Catherine.

On the bird sanctuary, can we make an ordinance to remove

chickens from the bird sanctuary?

Or is that all encompassing, meaning we can't pick and

choose?

03:52:12 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
That's actually what we are researching

right now.

03:52:14 >> I think you saw some of the questions we had, the chicken

cross the road, what you can do is get rid of that chicken,

and it can end up in Mr. Reddick's pot, or mysteriously




disappear for one reason.

But I think for me, I agree with Mr. Reddick's point, which

is this is unenforceable, you know, type of ordinance.

It's almost impossible for us to determine whether or not

someone's chickens are getting out and who they belong to.

I mean, if it's as great of a public need as was presented

by some of the folks that came before us over the past year,

you know, there's going to be poem growing eggs and have

chickens in it backyard and a whole cottage industry of

chicken wire and chicken coops and everything else and look

like the movie, you know, "on the waterfront."

There's going to be chickens on roofs.

I don't think that's actually going to happen but I think

the point is well taken by Mr. Reddick that once you come

back, make sure you talk to all of us about how we can

remove the chickens from the sanctuary language.

03:53:28 >> From the research, figure out what our limits are,

whether or not we can peck a certain type of bird -- cook a

certain type of bird.

03:53:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anyone in the audience who has not

spoken?

I need to close before the chicken crosses the street.

I need a motion to close.

Mrs. Montelione makes a motion to close.

Second by Mr. Cohen on item 66.




All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

Opposed nay.

The ayes have it unanimously.

Ms. Mulhern.

03:54:02 >>MARY MULHERN:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move an ordinance being presented for second reading and

adoption, an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida

relating to chickens making revisions to City of Tampa code

of ordinances, amending chapter 27, zoning and land

development, amending section 27-43, definitions, amending

section 27-156, official schedule of district regulations,

ending section 27-177, historic district established,

ending section 27-211.8 schedule of permitted uses by

district, amending section 27-282.25, kennel, small,

ending section 27-282.26, kennel, large, amending section

27-282.27, animals, in general, creating section 27-282.28,

chicken as an accessory use, repealing all ordinances or

parts of ordinances in conflict therewith, providing for

severability, providing an effective date.

03:55:01 >>HARRY COHEN:
Second.

03:55:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Mrs. Mulhern.

I have a second by Mr. Cohen.

Further discussion by council members?

This is a roll call vote.

Second reading of this chicken ordinance.




Vote and record.

03:55:25 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Suarez and Reddick voting

no.

03:55:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay.

We go now to item 67.

I need a motion to remove from the agenda.

03:55:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So moved.

03:55:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Mr. Suarez to remove

67 from the agenda.

Second by Mrs. Mulhern.

Further discussion by council members?

All in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye.

Opposed nay.

The ayes have it unanimously.

We go to second reading on item number 68.

68.

City?

03:55:59 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
Planning and development.

This is second reading for the final area for the Seminole

Heights planning area.

The northeast sector.

And I'm available for any questions.

We respectfully ask --

03:56:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Questions by council members?

We go to the public on 68.




Anyone in the audience care to speak on item 68?

68?

I don't know if they are coming up or not.

There we are.

Item number 68.

Yes, sir.

03:56:34 >> Good afternoon.

My name is Raymond Kohler.

I live at 1227 east talton Avenue in Seminole hits for the

past 34030th years and I'm a member of the Hampton

terrace neighborhood association.

I know the Hampton HTNA is requesting that Hampton be

exempted from the form based zoning.

Before you decide on this I feel it's very important that

you be aware that Hampton terrace neighborhood association

is not speaking for all of Hampton terrace.

When Hampton terrace neighborhood was created, the officers

were not elected with a sweeping mandate.

It came down to a matter of just a few votes.

It was not a landslide election.

And in view of this, Shannon Edge, who was the city

representative at that time, cautioned the new board to be

inclusive and to cement the neighborhood together to

accomplish good things after this very wrenching experience

on an extremely he mogul election.




They were supposed to represent everybody in Hampton

terrace.

Well, today HTNA has not followed the spirit of the

neighborhood working together.

This is blatantly displays played when recently a business

tried to set up shop in our neighborhood.

An officer of HTNA met with the perspective merchant and

offered to hammer out operating instructions but they never

did contact the neighborhood.

The immediate neighbors are very affected by this,

especially with their young families but never given the

respect of being sounded out because they would be so

impacted how they felt about the issue.

HTNA should have contacted them before he ever started

trying to make arrangements with this late-hour business.

Instead, these concerned neighbors had to come down to

express their opposition to the council, and they actually

did prevent -- present such compelling arguments that the

council did veto this late night liquor store.

And now he would see the whole thing happening again.

This issue with the form based zoning is one that was wide

accepted for the area for Hampton terrace and many other

areas wanted to be accepted but HTNA made no attempt to con

vas the neighborhood, to get the feel of the neighborhood.

They have not been responsible on this issue to represent




the entire neighborhood.

What they should do as officers of the neighborhood is

inform and educate the neighborhood, then have a dialogue

with the neighbors to be see what we think, what we have

learned, and then they should represent everybody.

They should not be allowed to make unilateral decisions, or

decisions that are based -- or supported fully by positions

for our Piniella opinion.

Please in this matter listen to all the residents of

Hamilton terrace and you will find there are many more

besides me and do not let HTMA dictate the future of our

neighborhood without including us in any type of decision.

Thank you very much.

03:59:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.

Next, please.

03:59:37 >> My name is MONA robeson, 1211 east Hannah Avenue in

Hampton terrace, A and I hand to you 184 letters form based

planning from the neighbors of Hampton terrace.

I was a member of the HTNA.

I am not anymore.

And we were so appalled when we were at the last meeting to

hear that someone was speaking for us without actually

asking us our opinion that we -- several neighbors spent the

last three weeks and many, many hours of our time canvassing

the neighborhood talking to people, finding out that no one




has ever spoken to them about it.

And so these are for you all.

We actually, on the letter and you can read it when you get

a copy of it -- we actually sent a letter to the neighbors

and explained to them just in brief detail what form-based

zoning was, how it affected the commercial district, how it

affected the residential district, and we told them what had

happened at the last meeting and asked them if they agreed,

to please sign it.

We obviously didn't have time to canvas the entire

neighborhood.

But I think we got a lot of people to sign up.

So thank you.

I really hope that you support it.

I think it would be terrible to pull us out from the 9600

parcels that are part of Seminole Heights to pull out 500

homes out.

We would be really upset.

Thank you.

04:01:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Next, please.

04:01:08 >> Evan Kinghaus, 1227 East Powhattan Avenue in Seminole

Heights.

I'm speaking on behalf of McDonald, one of our members who

is not here and she left her comments for me to read to you.




I am going to read to the you verbatim so please excuse the

lack of eye contact.

Mr. Shimberg and members of the City Council, I own my home

at 5605 9th street north, and form based zoning for

Seminole Heights.

I'm here to support -- support your approval -- excuse me.

The change in form based zoning codes for areas of Seminole

Heights.

I am here -- property owners who don't want change.

I think we all know that property rights are guaranteed by

the Constitution of the United States and by the State of

Florida.

I value everyone's property rights.

A reason also to be concerned about increasing property

values and form based zoning throughout Seminole Heights.

I value I want the value of my property and my neighbors'

property to increase.

It will increase the tax base if I pay more taxes and you

will have less money to spend on city services.

Commercial properties here, form based codes, they can

repurpose those buildings, provide for small businesses that

are major sources of employment in our country.

And add even more money to the economy.

It just might mean, that you don't have to come to so many

council meetings to vote for variances.




If people know from the start the code will not support the

purpose of the property, won't be applying for variance.

Last but not least, the city is trying to bring Tampa into

the 21st century.

I support the refurbishing of old buildings, and the code

says help protect neighborhoods just as they do in other

countries around the world.

It will never get to be a great city unless we go back to

letting the majority decide issues and not letting a small

handful of residents block progress and a better life for

all the people of Tampa.

Before I say thank you, that's evidenced by the letter Mona

just handed in to you. So thank you for considering this,

for considering this form based zoning for Seminole Heights.

Again I am in support of it personally.

And so is Ann.

Thank you very much.

04:03:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much, sir.

Next, please.

04:03:58 >> Sid Roberts, 1424 east Idlewild Avenue, in Hampton

terrace.

I do want this to pass.

We need this zoning.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.




04:04:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Anyone else who has not spoken?

04:04:12 >> Susan Long, 920 East Broad Street.

I do live in this area and the whole area that I live in, we

haven't heard one complaint.

Everybody is totally in support of it.

So please pass this.

Thank you.

04:04:30 >> Thank you very much.

Ms. Coyle?

Has as this ordinance stands now is it all inclusive

including Hampton terrace?

04:04:39 >> That's correct.

04:04:39 >> I want to make sure before we continue.

Anyone else in the audience who would care to speak on this

item ha that has not spoken, item 68?

Any other comments by council members?

Need a motion to close.

04:04:49 >> Motion to close.

04:04:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion which Mrs. Montelione to close,

second by Mr. Suarez on 68.

All in favor indicate by saying aye.

Opposed nay.

The ayes have it unanimously to close.

Mrs. Montelione, would you kindly read this ordinance?




04:05:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
(off microphone).

04:05:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
68.

04:05:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Item 68.

I move an ordinance being presented for second reading and

adoption, an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida

relating to an area rezoning, the general location of which

is south of the Hillsborough River, north of Hillsborough

Avenue, west of 22nd street and Rowlett park drive and east

of a boundary running south on interstate 275 from hills

important river to Henry Avenue thence running east to Henry

Avenue to the alley immediately west of Nebraska Avenue,

thence running south to Hillsborough Avenue in the city of

Tampa, Florida from zoning district classifications for

residential RS-50 and RS-60, residential multifamily RM-16

commercial neighborhood CN commercial general CG and

commercial intensive CI to Seminole Heights specific zoning

classifications SH-RS, SH-RM, SH-CN, SH-CG, and SH-CI

providing for notice providing an effective date.

04:06:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mrs. Montelione.

Second by Mr. Suarez.

Roll call vote.

Vote and record.

04:06:19 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Capin being absent at

vote.

04:06:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.




We go now to item 71 which I have been asked to present

first before item 69.

They have a companionship here.

Item 71.

The second public hearing regarding the annexation.

Ordinance.

Anyone in the audience care to speak on item number 71?

It's regarding annexation of approximately 7.68 acres of

land in unincorporated Hillsborough County.

04:07:03 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Move to close.

04:07:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Second.

04:07:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it unanimously.

I am going give this to Mr. Cohen since he sits right

next -- all right, I gave you that one.

Mrs. Montelione.

04:07:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
It's now Tampa.

Thank you.

I move an ordinance being presented for second reading and

adoption, an ordinance relating to the voluntary annexation

to the city of Tampa, Florida, a municipal corporation

existing under the laws of the State of Florida of certain

unincorporated land in the general vicinity of 10610 broken

arrow drive and 10550 taboo drive and consisting of




approximately 7.68-acre of land annexing the property into

the City of Tampa upon voluntary petition from the owner of

the property, redefining and extending the boundary lines of

the City of Tampa to include the property, providing an

effective date.

04:07:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione.

I have a second by Mr. Suarez.

And this is the second hearing.

Public hearing.

Roll call vote.

Vote and record.

04:08:12 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Capin being absent at

vote.

04:08:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We go to item number 69 now.

This is the second public hearing for the amendment to the

Tampa comprehensive plan and the general vicinity of 10610

broken arrow drive.

Anyone in the audience care to speak on item number 69?

I see no one.

Motion to close by Mr. Suarez.

Second by Mr. Reddick.

All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

Opposed nay.

Motion carries unanimously.

Mr. Reddick, will you kindly read number 69?




04:08:49 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Move an ordinance being presented for

second reading and adoption, an ordinance amending the Tampa

comprehensive plan, future land use map for property located

in the general vicinity of 10610 broken arrow drive and

10550 taboo drive, from residential 1, R 1, to suburban

mixed use 3, SMU-3, providing for repeal of all ordinances

in conflict, providing for severability, providing an

effective date.

04:09:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Mr. Reddick.

Second by Mr. Suarez on a close vote with Mr. Cohen.

Roll call vote.

Vote and record.

04:09:37 >> Motion carried with Capin being absent at vote.

04:09:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We go to item 70.

Anyone in the audience care to speak on item number 70?

70?

I see no one.

Motion to close by Mr. Reddick, second by Mr. Cohen.

All in favor?

The ayes have it unanimously.

The item is now closed.

Mr. Cohen, will you kindly take number 70?

04:10:02 >> I move an ordinance being presented for second reading

and adoption, an ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive

plan, future land use map, for the property located in the




general vicinity of the southwest quadrant of South

Westshore Boulevard at west press Scott street from light

industrial LI to residential 35, R 35, providing for repeal

of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,

providing an effective date.

04:10:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Mr. Cohen, second by

Mrs. Mulhern on a close vote with Mr. Suarez.

Roll call vote.

Vote and record.

04:10:35 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Capin being absent at

vote.

04:10:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We go to, I believe, item 72.

04:10:51 >>MARY MULHERN:
That's coming back August 22nd of '13.

73 is continued to August 22nd.

So that takes care of 72 and 73.

74 goes to October 24th.

04:11:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I'm sorry, but would you like to set a

time for that?

Because I believe it wasn't mentioned on the addendum.

We have something now at 9:00 in the morning.

04:11:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Give me a time, somebody.

04:11:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
9:30?

10:00?

Depending on how long you want to extend the workshop at

9:00 on the 24th.




The economic development of West bank of west Tampa and Main

Street in old West Tampa.

04:11:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
That item then is 10:00 in the morning.

04:11:48 >> That's fine.

10:00 in the morning.

Just for item 74.

04:11:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Then 74 is at 10:00 in the morning.

All in favor of that motion for October 24th, 2013, at

10:00, 2013.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion passed unanimously.

The other two are taken care of, I assume?

04:12:13 >> Yes.

04:12:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Item 75 is completed.

76 is completed.

77 -- that's withdrawn.

That goes to 78.

Continued public hearing.

Withdrawn.

We are batting 100 right now.

04:12:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Could I make a motion to accept the

withdrawal?

04:12:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Move that we accept the withdrawal.

04:12:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mr. Suarez on 78 to withdraw,




seconded by Mr. Reddick.

All in favor of that motion please signify by saying aye.

Opposed nay.

Motion passes unanimously.

Item 79.

04:13:08 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Is it open?

V-13-62.

This is the application for alcoholic beverage sales for

convenience retail, beer, wine, on premises consumption and

package sales off premises consumption.

The property is located at 101 north 12th Street, suite

number 101.

There are no waivers being requested in this application.

The sales area is 973 square feet.

It is -- there is available 101 parking spaces on-site.

It's actually a mixed use building.

The property is located at the corner of Whiting and 12th

Street in the Channelside district.

It's an existing coffee shop.

Here is a picture of the current location.

The view looking north on 12th.

And this is looking south on 12th.

View along Channelside.

And a view along White.

It's an existing coffee shop, as I said, and is currently




approved as a convenience retail for package sales.

They are wanting to do consumption on premises.

And their hours of operation as it relates to the alcoholic

beverage sales will be Monday through Saturday, 7 a.m. to 3

a.m.

Sunday, 11 a.m. to 3 a.m.

Staff has no objections with the request.

There are certain site plan revisions that I have submitted

for the record that we would like to have before second

reading.

04:15:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Officer?

04:15:07 >> Don Miller, City of Tampa police.

We have in objection.

04:15:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Petitioner?

Is petitioner here?

04:15:29 >> Vehicle try coffee.

04:15:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Anyone in the audience care to speak on this petition?

Number 79.

V-13-62.

Do I hear anyone?

I see no one.

I hear no one.

Motion to close by Mr. Reddick.




Second by Mr. Cohen.

All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Before I close, Ms. Capin.

04:15:52 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
You are going to be open Monday through

Saturday, 20 hours a day?

And on Sunday, 16 hours.

04:15:59 >> We are currently during the week from 7 to 6.

So right now we shut down at 6.

We would like --

04:16:07 >> you just put the hours.

04:16:12 >> Yes.

We probably only stay open till nine or ten through the

week, depending.

04:16:27 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Mrs. Kert, these are the hours the city

allows?

04:16:31 >>REBECCA KERT:
Staff is indicating that it's on the site

plan.

04:16:33 >> Because that's what we asked for as of 1998 or something

like that.

04:16:39 >> I recall at some point within the last several years, I

believe City Council had directed, because there's so much

conversation about hours of operation, that the hours of

operation be directly placed on the site plan, and City

Council be notified of what those hours were.




04:16:51 >> And that's what we --

04:16:59 >>REBECCA KERT:
That was a request of City Council, unless

somebody wants to tell me different.

There's no actual code requirement that it be posted that

the condition could be removed and they would just operate

under whatever hours.

04:17:11 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I think that would be my recommendation,

that they not be posted on the site plan.

04:17:23 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
Planning and development.

I would say between first and second reading you can ask us

to default to code and we can change that note.

04:17:33 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Then that's what I request.

04:17:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I am not going to close the hearing

until -- what is it that you want?

Don't tell me what the city has.

Tell me what you want.

04:17:45 >> As far as hours?

04:17:47 >> Yes, sir.

04:17:47 >> Right now we are open till 6:
00 during the week.

We are open till 9:00 on the weekends.

We would like to at least increase it to 9:00 or 10:00.

What do I want?

04:17:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I wish I could speak for you but I can't.

04:18:01 >> Well, the maximum allowed by the city.




04:18:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes?

I'm about ready to -- go on, Mr. Suarez.

04:18:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Do you have a business plan?

Like everyone else, we have what the max is.

We have what you are now.

What do -- where do you want to be?

Do you want to be at 10:00, 11? That's what we need to know

so we can put it on the site plans and go forward.

04:18:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
May I?

04:18:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Just one second.

Let me finish this conversation before I go to another.

04:18:43 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
The only recommendation I would make is that

it default to code.

And I am not interested in the hours that you want to

operate.

I was looking at these hours.

But I'm not interested -- I'm interested in what we have on

the code.

And I would suggest that we default to code.

04:18:58 >> I agree.

04:19:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Suarez and then Mrs. Montelione.

04:19:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
(off microphone).

04:19:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mrs. Montelione?

04:19:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I don't want you to make a snap decision

and change your hours of operations or say 9:00 or 10:00




like the chair mentioned, because as Mr. Suarez pointed out,

this is a business decision, and I don't want you to knee

jerk react because whatever you say is going to be what you

have to stick to, and that concerns me.

So if we default to this code, then it's the maximum hours

here.

And if that's what you base your business decision on, I

don't want you to like all of a sudden throw something out

there and then go home and regret it later.

Because in this forum, in the 30 second or five minutes, not

even five minutes that you have had to think about it, it's

a life changing decision.

And I don't think that it's fair to put you in that spot,

right here, right now, make a snap decision, what do you

want?

So that's my concern.

So I just wanted to put that on the record that I caution

you to decide off the cuff.

And I think Mr. Suarez is getting at that.

04:20:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And if I could, I take what you say at face

value primarily because if you are a business owner and you

change what you are doing with your business, you must have

some idea of where you want to be.

So I don't think it's a snap decision.

But let him answer.




Do you have any thought whatsoever as to what your hours are

actually going to be?

That's the question we are asking you.

If you don't know, you don't know.

You have to put something on the record, that's all.

04:21:05 >> We came in per the site plan and what the code allows.

We haven't determined our exact hours yet.

Once it's approved, then we'll decide what our hours are

going to be.

04:21:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay.

Anyone in the audience care to speak on this subject matter,

number 79, V-13-62, please come forward.

No one showing up?

Okay.

I need a motion to close.

I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione to close.

Second by Mr. Cohen.

All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

Opposed nay.

Motion to close passes unanimously.

Okay.

Who wants to read this ordinance?

Mrs. Montelione.

Mrs. Capin?

04:21:50 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.




Just a reminder to default to code.

That's what he said -- says it here.

04:22:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I think the point that Councilman Capin is

remove the hours in the site plan so that what in controls

is not site plan.

04:22:17 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
That's correct.

Defaults to code.

04:22:19 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I understand that.

But the problem I have with that is if we change the code,

we have just changed his business hours.

And I don't know that City Council should be in the position

to change his business hours.

If it defaults to code and we change the code, we changed

his business hours.

If it's on the site plan, we can't change his business

hours.

04:22:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
That is absolutely correct.

And council is contemplating -- council is going to be

discussing a mechanism by which you can, in effect, license

businesses to comply with their conditions.

04:22:57 >> Right.

But we haven't done that yet.

04:23:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
That's correct.

04:23:01 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
He's making application under the

current code, and he came to us under the current code, and




I would like to go forward under the current code.

Not have him subject to a discussion of us possibly change

you are our rules that we haven't had yet.

04:23:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Right. But the code does not require the

operations of operation be placed on the site plan.

And it came up in the discussion in the alcoholic

workshop --

04:23:27 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I understand that.

04:23:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I just want to be clear on that so

whatever council wishes to do that it's clear.

04:23:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I just want to operate under the current

code.

04:23:37 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
But that isn't the code.

It is not required on the site plan.

Ms. Coyle, is it required on the site plan?

04:23:46 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.

No, it's not required to be on the site plan.

04:23:51 >> I'm sorry?

04:23:52 >> The hours of operation are not required to be on the site

plan.

04:23:57 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

If you would like them, then that's what will happen.

If you don't, you don't.

But those are the hours.

04:24:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm trying to understand.




It's on the site plan.

The hours of operation that are here, 7 a.m. to 3 a.m., the

following day, Sunday, 11 to 3 a.m. on the following day.

If that's on the site plan you can operate your business

anytime within those hours.

You can decide to close earlier if you want.

But you can operate -- if it's on the site plan.

If it's not on the site plan, and we change the code, later

on, then your business is going to be subject to whatever we

change the code to.

04:24:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Do you understand that?

04:24:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So do you want to keep it on the site

plan or you don't want to keep it on the site plan?

That's the question.

04:24:48 >> Keep it on the site plan.

04:24:50 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I am going read the ordinance as stated.

I move an ordinance for first reading consideration, an

ordinance approving a special use permit S-2 for alcoholic

beverage sales, convenience retail, consumption -- wait a

second.

Yes, okay, I'm sorry.

That's the right one.

It's getting late.

An ordinance approving a special use permit S-2 for

alcoholic beverage sales, convenience retail, consumption on




premises, package sales off premises and making lawful the

sale of beer and wine at or from that certain lot, plot or

tract of land located at 101 north 12th Street, suite 101,

Tampa, Florida and as more particularly described in section

2, that all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict

are repealed, providing an effective date.

04:25:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione on

first reading.

Do I have a second?

Second by Mr. Reddick.

Item number 79, V-13-62.

All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

Opposed nay.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much for appearing.

04:25:52 >>THE CLERK:
Second reading of the ordinance will be held

August 1st at 9:30 a.m.

And the vote was taken with Mulhern being absent at vote.

04:26:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

We go to item number 81.

Public hearing review.

Continuation.

Quasi-judicial.

Anyone in the audience who hasn't been sworn in must be

sworn in.




(Oath administered by Clerk).

04:26:32 >>> Eric Cotton, Land Development Coordination.

This is a petition for review for VRB 13-33 located at 11302

north Oregon Avenue in the Forest Hill subdivision near the

golf course.

The applicant is Jimmy Jordan.

The application was heard by the variance review board on

May 14, 2013. The applicant is asking for two separate

variances.

On the site plan.

They are asking for building separation.

You may be aware the zoning is -- required feet five feet to

zero feet and 7-foot tall fence along the rear property

line.

The board denied the request.

The applicant did submit a letter of support from the Forest

Hill neighborhood association which should be in a packet

that you all received from the clerk's office.

And if you have any questions regarding the request, I will

be more than happy to answer them for you.

04:27:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any questions at this time?

Petitioner?

04:27:33 >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of council.

I have been sworn in.

I am John LaRocca, Murphy LaRocca consulting and I'm a Sith




assisting the applicant and petitioner Jimmy Jordan.

I will make a brief presentation due to the late hour.

I will present as much information and fact as I can with

regard to the petition for review.

And if you have any specific questions for me or of the

owner/petitioner, please do so.

This is a request -- and for the record, there were two

requests as Mr. Cotton indicated, an increase in fence

height along the western property line from six to seven

feet and the waiver of the eve to eve setback of criteria

for accessory structure.

For the record, I want to state we want to take off the

table any request of increased fence height so we would like

to focus or requests and comments today on simply the waiver

to the setback from eve to eve accessory structure to

principal structure.

With that said, and as Mr. Cotton indicated, one of my jobs

in assisting Mr. Jordan is to make sure that we entered

everything into the record.

One of the items that we have been asked to present is a

copy of the DVD from the Variance Review Board hearing.

Ford record I will submit that along with what some knew

information that is being presented today from the original

hearing, as a letter from Tampa Electric Company.

I'll address that in a moment.




I am reentering into the record the letter from the Forest

Hills neighborhood association that indicated support of

this particular application, and the original letter and

updated letter from the adjacent property owner most

affected, if you will, that live directly to the west of the

property, and that's a letter from Mr. Alan worth who owns

the property at 11301 north Rome Avenue directly to the rear

or to the west of this property.

And I am also submitting two illustrations, one showing

prepared by Mr. Jordan that illustrates the accessory

structure in relationship to the current code, and the

proposal showing what the elevation of that street face

would look like with the variance that is requested.

And if I may submit that to the clerk for the record.

The request before us today, and the reason for the

petition, is to seek a setback waiver from the required

5-foot eve to eve requirement for accessory structures to

essentially a zero setback eve to eve.

The proposal is to build a metal carport/accessory structure

to be located to the west of the current home that has and

what would be adjacent to the existing garage component of

the home that's built into the home.

The home, the reason for the justification, that I have just

submitted into the record, is a letter from Tampa Electric

Company indicating, there have been some recent incidents of




some emergency situations where there is a TECO power

easement that exists along the western property line, and

buried into the original plat for that subdivision running

the entire length of homes for that easement.

There is a TECO power line that runs to the rear of the

home.

That power line and the lines that are there utilize from

what I am told by Verizon and Bright House, TECO has

prepared a letter based on an incident where one of the

lines fell and was creating a hazard.

TECO was asked if at all possible that the 3-foot easement

that is to the rear of the property, that happens to be the

same setback requirement understander accessory use along

that property line, should be at a minimum 9 feet wide.

The applicant is proposing to locate the accessory structure

that he is proposing to be located closer to the home -- and

I will give some of the justification and reasons for

that -- and trying to keep as much of a setback off of the

western property line that would illustrate and allow access

of vehicles into that backyard if necessary.

Mr. Jordan would like an accessory structure that meets all

aspects of the code with regard to height, area of the

space, but move it closer to home for physical reasons that

he has, but also to be able to capture and recognize that

the existing home has a substantial eve.




There is a four foot separation between the structures.

The proposal will be able to capture rain, if you will,

stormwater runoff into the existing gutter, and at the same

time allow a setback that would allow lawnmowers to use that

property.

Entered into the record was a letter from Tampa Electric

Company asking that any structure that was placed in that

area, that nine feet or more, would even be better for

access of the vehicles.

And Mr. Jordan can address some of the instances where TECO

had to get back there.

With that said, we believe there is circumstances that exist

with regard to the design and configuration of that

property, and the fact that Tampa Electric Company would ask

for a larger setback of any structure that would be placed

on that property.

Mr. Jordan respectfully requests that that be considered.

The property to directly across the street -- and I would

like to just show a picture -- is of an existing

single-family home with a three-car parking garage.

Obviously, Mr. Jordan is attempting to design an accessory

structure that will be comparable to the extension of the

garage of the home.

With that said, we would be glad to share any other

information with you, presenting any other facts.




In Jordan is here to answer any questions with regard to the

proposal and how he intends on using that property.

I know the hour is late.

And I respect your time.

And I will be glad to answer questions.

Thank you.

04:34:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Mulhern?

04:34:22 >>MARY MULHERN:
Mr. LaRocca, we just got this diagram.

So there's a two-car garage, and Mr. Jordan wants to add a

carport?

There already is a two-car garage?

04:34:38 >> There's a built-in two-car garage at the existing home.

That is correct.

If I may expand upon the answer to that question, he is

attempting to remove the existing accessory structure that's

in the rear yard now and utilize this new accessory

structure as an area to consolidate what's in the yard now,

and to utilize workshop material, et cetera.

04:35:02 >>MARY MULHERN:
Thank you.

04:35:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any other council members at this time?

Ms. Mulhern?

04:35:22 >>MARY MULHERN:
(off microphone) is that the applicant's

house?

04:35:26 >> No.

That is the property across the street.




I wanted to show the character that there are at least

garage doors facing that directly across from the property.

I have photographs of the existing home.

This is the front of the current home that faces Oregon.

And I only have pictures at this point that is of the sign

that we put up.

And that picture reflects an existing structure that's to be

removed.

04:36:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any further comments, petitioner? Anyone

in the audience care to speak on item 81?

04:36:14 >> Gayle Madison.

I have been sworn.

I reside at 10409 cliff circle.

I am coming forward in support of this variance.

As you can see on the Elmo, the existing structure that sits

on the west or back property line along with Mr. Jordan's

other equipment is all going to be removed.

And the fact that he has such a large overhang, he is trying

to incorporate this overhang with the accessory structure so

that it represents tree, car, garage, instead of having it

broken up, and sit separately on the property.

This use by TECO is very valuable to the neighborhood,

because of all the padding in our neighborhood years ago.

Most of the power lines go down the rear of the homes.

And everyone from there to the all have fences.




This is the only accessible way that TECO has of getting

into the property.

Also, I think that the addition of this accessory closer to

the home utilizes the back that he will be able to have more

of a control of the runoff over water.

It will not be coming off of his house and off of two side

of the accessory structure.

It will all be routed in one direction.

It also makes more of a compatible use.

All of this will be closed behind the fence.

And we and the neighborhood all used this quite extensively,

and believe that it is a plus.

And Mr. Jordan is a very conservative neighbor, and also

this type of addition is, of course, compatible with the

rest of the neighborhood, and it's nothing but a win-win for

us.

04:38:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, Mrs. Madison.

And we want to say that worry certainly hopeful that you

came through with your successful surgery and you are

looking much better.

04:38:50 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
She always looks good.

04:38:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mrs. Mulhern.

04:38:55 >>MARY MULHERN:
I guess -- so is TECO in need of having

that structure taken down?

04:39:05 >> Yes.




04:39:08 >>MARY MULHERN:
We just got the file in so I haven't read

that.

04:39:11 >> LaRocca:
And maybe this is not the best aerial to show

you, but if I may.

What you are looking at on the Elmo is -- the property, the

white roof structure, the northwest corner of Oregon and 4,

is the applicant's property.

The block, if it were split, the rectangle block were split

north-south, the TECO line currently exists, lines in what

is three feet on either side of the center line of that

block, with transformers and other lines that serve other

utilities in that area.

If you look at that carefully, you will see a bunch of

stuff, whether legally permitted or not over the years.

There are structures, and from what I understand, in

communicating with the petitioner, who lives there, and has

experienced some of the emergency access needs, when they

come knock being on Mr. Jordan's door, when they need to get

that there, in the back of the property, and in talking with

TECO representatives, it is important for TECO, if at all

possible, to maintain as much open space along that rear.

And even though there's an easement of three feet, they have

asked -- the code would allow a structure to be placed three

feet from that line, any new structure by right without

requesting any waivers or variances.




But because of all the factors in consideration, TECO is

very pleased to know that if there's an opportunity to move

this accessory structure and justify that structure to move

farther to the east, they would prefer a greater setback,

and removal of anything those within that nine feet from the

center line, if you will, of that block.

04:40:57 >>MARY MULHERN:
Okay.

04:41:00 >> If I have answered the question.

04:41:02 >>MARY MULHERN:
I guess you have.

You need to show a hardship.

But this hardship, what was the hardship you presented to

the -- TECO is the new information we have?

04:41:14 >> And quite honestly, we didn't present that, because what

I was given to work with and the survey, many surveyors, as

I was told, don't pick up -- this is based on a conversation

that we had with TECO in terms of their needs.

Didn't want to by here say present issues that TECO

presented.

But that's why we submitted the letter.

04:41:34 >> I need to see that letter then, whoever has it, if we

could have it.

04:41:37 >> Right.

And the hardship is that common to other areas in the area,

there are some factors associated with this property, like a

much larger overhang on existing structure, and with TECO




wanting to see the accessory structure farther away from

that property line offers some hardship justification for

granting of that waiver.

04:42:07 >> But it was the petitioner -- the whole TECO thing is kind

of after the fact.

They are saying, yes, this would help, rights?

This is what generated the request in the first place?

04:42:32 >> Originally, the applicant -- he wanted the ability to

have maintaining -- because obviously the code says if you

maintain a five-foot setback eve to eve, you can push the

accessory structure all the way to the other property line,

and close to three feet from that property line.

But he needs a certain amount of face in an access I

structure that meets code to be able to put it a little bit

closer to the home to maintain the size dimensions.

04:43:03 >>MARY MULHERN:
But what seems to have come out just now is

he wants a three-car garage.

Is that what we are talking about?

04:43:10 >> Again, I would have to ask Mr. Jordan to address

specifically what he's going to do in this structure but

it's not just for garage.

He's trying to make it look like a garage, that it meets the

appearance of the neighborhood.

04:43:22 >>MARY MULHERN:
Is this common in that neighborhood,

three-car garages?




04:43:26 >> There's one right across the street.

04:43:27 >> I saw the one.

04:43:28 >> Yes.

Well, that's the one I am very familiar with.

04:43:33 >> Because it's not a common thing in most of the City of

Tampa, except in St. Petersburg, or Davis Island, eleven car

garages.

Okay.

04:43:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any other comments by council members?

This is a public hearing.

Anyone in the audience care to speak on this hearing, item

number 81?

I see no one.

Any other comments of petitioner?

I need a motion to close by Mr. Reddick.

Seconded by Mrs. Montelione.

All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

Opposed nay.

Motion to close passes unanimously.

What's the pleasure of council?

04:44:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, sir.

I move to overturn the VRB decision and approve the variance

request of the applicant.

04:44:26 >> Second.

04:44:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm sorry.




Based on the ability of the applicant to demonstrate the

need for extending the fence from 6 feet to 7 feet --

04:44:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
No, the fence is out.

The fence is out.

I'm sorry.

The fence is out.

They made that --

04:44:51 >> It's only the setback.

04:44:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Only the setback with the requirements

and so forth and so on.

04:44:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm looking for the standard of review,

to site that.

Must demonstrate a hardship.

Is that correct?

I was log at standard of review number 2, the hardship of

difficult does not relate in the applicant's created

hardship shall not justify a variance, and number one, the

alleged hardship practical difficulties are unique and

singular with respect to the property, or with respect to

the structure building, and not those suffered in common

with other property structures of buildings similarly

located.

And I think the applicant has demonstrated that the

situation of the property and the placement of the structure

would fit those two criteria, and it would not substantially




interfere or injury the health, safety, welfare of others

whose property would be affected by allowance of the

variance.

That's number three.

04:46:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We have a motion by Ms. Montelione.

I believe the second was by Mr. Cohen.

On a close vote with Mr. Reddick.

Further discussion?

Yes, sir.

04:46:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Just to clarify, that part of the motion

is to accept the withdrawal of the fence variance request?

04:46:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Correct.

04:46:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
And this pertains to the decision

receipting to the setback.

04:46:24 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Shelby.

04:46:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay. Need to vote.

Motion made by Mrs. Montelione. Second by Mr. Cohen.

All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

Opposed nay.

Motion to overturn the Variance Review Board is unanimous.

Thank you very much. Okay.

We go to new business, information report by council

members. We go right to left.

Mr. Suarez.




04:46:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair.

I only have one piece of new business.

This just came over the wire or came over that Detroit has

filed bankruptcy, and largest bankruptcy in the nation's

history for a municipality.

The reason I mention it is because there has been

speculation that because of Detroit's financial difficulty,

the ripple effects throughout the bonding community will

affect every city throughout the United States, including

us.

So we have to keep a close watch on that, as we go through

our budgets, and determine what our short and long-term debt

obligation is going to be.

I was just coincidentally in Detroit last week.

And although we are nowhere near the size of Detroit both in

terms of geographic size or population, they lost a quarter

of their population over a ten-year period, primarily

because of economic conditions, but also because of

mismanagement, and malfeasance in some areas.

I just mention it because we do have to keep our eye on the

ball.

04:48:03 >> Thank you for bringing that up, but himself they are

making another mistake to sell the water company and that is

one of the things they want to do.

Thank you very much.




Mrs. Capin.

04:48:15 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
(off microphone)

Yes.

I have to say that both Miguel Cabrera, chair, and director

Lapano, on this week and last week's news that was brought

to us, and the reason I bring up the community, the Indian

community was extremely -- actually, it was their initiative

that started this -- but I have to say, Carerra set the

stage with the two Super Bowls and the RNC contracts that he

was very much involved in set that stage, and I'm so glad

that we are going see Bollywood awards here, so I want to

say congratulations to Santios Carerra for setting that

stage for us in the city.

As far as director Lapano, he has been with us a year and a

half, two years, and ha has brought us two -- three

international flights to Tampa, and COPA airlines signed up

in the first inaugural flight is in December, 16 or 17, and

when I spoke to Mr. Lopano, he said he couldn't see why more

elected officials couldn't be on there.

So I signed up.

And I will be on the inaugural flight to Encoba.

So I want everyone to know that these two people are adjusts

really, really moving our city forward.

But I want to bring up Bollywood, and the reason is because

it was stated in the newspaper.




This is global.

We are having 30 to 40,000 people coming from everywhere all

over the world, and that global forums will be held.

And that's one of the things that just coincided this

morning, that gentleman brought up.

The Dollar General Store.

That's one of maybe three conglomerates.

So -- and you brought up the budget.

So when we are looking at the DNA changing in our city, the

scientific term is mutation.

And not all of it is necessarily good.

Some of it can be fatal.

So we need to ask ourselves, to use foreign investment money

to build dollar stores rather than what the other areas are

doing such as resorts and arenas, medical centers, then we

need to question ourselves.

We may be mutating into a five and dime economy.

Instead of a high-tech tourist economy.

In the five and dime is easy.

We have a choice.

So far, we have chosen the eggs I path with little or no

positive long-term growth.

With a little forethought, we can choose a better and more

positive alternative.

And I would like to hear from the mayor who is contemplating




the EB-5 on one side or the other on this issue.

And wouldn't it be nice when Bollywood comes and there's 30

or 40,000 people and they have the business -- global

business forums, and we have a pipeline of cities that is so

I'm bringing up that.

Thank you.

04:52:05 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chair, let me may I go back?

We had an issue last week where we had a slumlord,

commercial trailer, and they were quoted as mobile homes.

They aren't mobile homes, they are commercial trailers would

be divided into 200 square foot.

One of the things that people don't realize, our code

enforcement people, there are 6,000 foreclosures in the city

as we speak.

Those all have to be inspected.

There's over 1,000 rental certificates, compliance due,

coming due.

And those have to be reviewed.

And there's three on staff for that.

The other thing I want to bring up.

There was 79 calls to this particular property for law

enforcement.

And, you know, when we talk about our budget, and we talk

about community law enforcement, as we did today, with




homeless, I cannot understand and believe that these law

enforcement police officers that called 79 times in one year

to this property did not see the condition.

You don't have to be certified to smell it, see rodents.

And all that needed to be done was to let code enforcement

know that this was an issue.

Such an issue that our police could make a note of it.

It's a matter of communication.

So while the mayor is doing a sweeping -- what is it called?

Code enforcement sweep, this is, you know, a crisis, and

government by crisis is not exactly -- we have to be

proactive.

You know, we have been looking at code enforcement.

We just passed one number 61, I believe it was, today.

Then the City Council is very aware that code enforcement,

there's a lot of issues here.

And now the mayor announced that there will be more money.

But I think we have to be smarter than that, because we are

saying we have 11 to $12 million deficit.

And we noticed to -- they are training 130 police officers

to be community oriented police officers.

They can train them or they can put a check mark on a report

when they are called out, that there is an issue.

Because code enforcement inspects to minimum standards.

So that was my -- my question.




When I saw that, there was 79 calls to that property.

And next door there were 40-something calls.

So between the two of them, there were 120 calls to the two

properties next to each other.

And no one says a word.

And that to me is letting these poem down.

And it was insinuated in a quote by the owner of this

property, or his spokesperson, that these people are the --

and I don't have the article here, I'm sorry -- so I am

going to paraphrase, would otherwise be on the street.

I did the math.

And you do the math.

It's 200 square feet of $550 a month.

That's $30 a square foot.

No one was trying to help.

That $30 a square foot, you could probably rent downtown

office space for less.

So that's my -- and so I think that the issue is to have an

extra set of eyes out there when police are called to please

communicate that.

And of course code enforcement needs a lot of, like I said,

there's 6,000 foreclosures in the City of Tampa that have to

be inspected, and a thousand certificates.

And we got three on staff for that.

04:56:41 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mr. Reddick?




04:56:44 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.

Chair, I have three items and would like to make a

statement, and that is, I want to follow up from this

morning and request that council send a letter to the state

historic group requesting support the Perry Harvey Sr. park.

I have a draft letter that can go to our attorney.

The deadline is tomorrow.

It will need to be mailed by tomorrow.

And I do have a draft letter that we just need to get a

draft signed and get it in an e-mail to the person by

tomorrow.

04:57:26 >>HARRY COHEN:
Second.

04:57:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mr. Reddick.

Second by Mr. Cohen. All in favor of the motion? Opposed?

Motion passes he unanimously.

04:57:34 >>FRANK REDDICK:
The next item is a follow-up to

Councilwoman Capin.

I want to request code enforcement, the police department,

and the legal department to prepare before council,

10:00 a.m., and a staff report to discuss the trailer park

demolition, and to provide an update to the trailer and

apartment unit and any new procedures for the condition will

occur in the future.

04:58:12 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Second. I made it.

04:58:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Oh, I love that word "I."




It's "we."

But anyway, I'll give it to the "I."

Motion by Mr. Reddick, seconded by "I," Ms. Capin.

All in favor say I, or we.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

04:58:33 >>FRANK REDDICK:
And request a commendation for the Florida

school of Addiction studies school, returning to Tampa after

17 years, and they will be here July 20-25, 2013.

04:58:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

04:58:49 >>FRANK REDDICK:
And request a commendation.

04:58:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mr. Reddick.

Second by Mrs. Montelione.

Please respond by saying aye.

Unanimous.

04:59:03 >>FRANK REDDICK:
And the last item.

If I could just have two minutes to say this, I would

appreciate it, because I think as the African-American

elected official on this council, in this community, this

needs to be said.

And this is last Saturday evening we all had a chance to

hear the verdict of the Trayvon Martin case.

And even though many of us were outraged and disappointed

about the verdict, that case is now over.

The protests and marches going on throughout this whole city




and this country, there's nothing I can do or anyone else

can do, but there are those who are putting pressure on the

Justice Department to bring civil rights charges to see if

there's a civil rights violation of Mr. Martin or the family

can pursue this as a civil case and in court.

But that is an issue that's been resolved, and the court

rendered a decision, jury rendered a decision, and move on.

And also, I have shared it in Orlando, I shared it

throughout this country.

But I want to say, this day, I'm equally outraged that a

20-year veteran who has served in the military representing

this country, on last Sunday morning, approximately

9:00 a.m., was shot and killed while trying to earn a living

for his family.

He returned back to this community because his mother was

sick.

And he's got a job at a Family Dollar Store and became the

manager.

And this is -- this young man was shot and killed by a

23-year-old African-American.

Where is the outrage in this community about this

black-on-black crime?

This family deserves justice, just as the Trayvon Martin

family deserves justice.

It's time in this community now that African men in this




community and this country, it's time that as

African-Americans, we must be prepared to explore this

issue.

Military veteran, 20 years serving this country, and he's

dead, by someone who looked just like him.

And there's not no outrage, no one is protesting, no one is

walking this neighborhood asking for justice to be served.

The killer of this person is still loose.

This person is hiding in someone's home. This person is

being protected by someone in this community.

And I think if we are going to be outraged by

African-American, 17-year-old African-American being shot by

a Hispanic, we should be equally outraged that we are being

shot by our own brothers in this country.

Where is the outrage?

And this bothered me.

This family deserves justice.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say this.

While the family is preparing to bury this Army veteran,

civil rights leaders throughout this country and clergy are

talking about having marches in 100 cities this weekend.

No one is marching for black-on-black crime.

That is the problem in our community.

No one is speaking about black-on-black crime.

And that is the problem in our community.




Since the verdict last Saturday night, seven people got

killed in Chicago. Black folks killing each other in

Chicago since this happened.

And no one is marching in Chicago.

So I want to say to all of those who plan to march this

weekend, if you march in the city of Tampa, or you march in

Hillsborough County, I just want to leave these words.

When are you going to march to resolve the crimes that are

affecting African-Americans against each other?

That's what we need to be doing.

And once we start doing that, we can solve this problem.

Because now we need to have dialogue.

We need to have communication.

We need to have more discussion.

And I'm ready for those dialogues.

And I'm ready for those discussions.

So when are you going to march before the shoot another

African-American and not march with black on white and black

on Hispanic?

We need to make changes and I hope we start soon.

Thank you.

05:04:55 >> Thank you, Mr. Reddick.

I don't think anyone could have put those words any better

than you just said, and really appreciate it.

And like I said at this point, we can't stop everything.




But it's got to come to an end somewhere along the line,

because it's impossible the way it is now.

And I appreciate it very much.

And when you march, we'll march with you.

Ms. Mulhern.

05:05:15 >>MARY MULHERN:
Well, now that my colleagues have

thoroughly depressed me about my former city, but Murder

City is now Bankrupt City, and Chicago is now Murder City.

I don't have anything to say.

But it's a pretty sad day for Detroit.

But actually thought they already were in bankruptcy.

It's been bad since the day I was born.

And it's been bad because all the white people moved out

back starting before I was born. So, anyway, thanks.

05:05:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.

Mr. Cohen?

05:06:02 >>MIKE COHEN:
Sobering times.

Somewhat related to the Detroit bankruptcy, or at least I

would hope to say in contrast to the Detroit bankruptcy, we

do have to schedule our public hearings for the fiscal year

2014 budget.

And tonight I would just like to make a motion to schedule

the first of those public hearings, a little bit off

schedule from when we normally meet but I would like to ask

council to schedule the first public hearing on the budget




and of course receive it from Mayor Buckhorn next week, on

Monday night, September 9th, at 5:01 p.m.

We will be not in session the entire week prior to that.

05:06:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Mr. Cohen.

I have a second by Mr. Suarez.

All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

Opposed nay. Motion passes unanimously.

05:06:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I have no new business, but I have to

tell you, Mr. Reddick, that was one of the most powerful

things I think I have heard in the two years I have been

sitting here on council.

So I really do appreciate your statement on that.

And as chair Miranda said, when you are ready to March, we

will be there with you.

I wanted to wish the City of Tampa a happy 126th

birthday.

We talk about history a lot here.

In these chambers.

And we have not recognized that Monday was our own 126th

birthday.

And I was on the city's Facebook page.

And I have to commend Urselos Ramos for this statement

because she touched my heart, and I think yours, when she

said, I have got a gazillion reasons why I love Tampa but

I'll just start and end with the vast diversity of people,




and the continued attempt to better itself.

And I think that's an appropriate way to end today's

session.

05:08:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.

I need a motion to receive and file all the documents.

Motion by Mr. Cohen. Second by Mr. Suarez.

All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

Opposed nay. The ayes have it unanimously.

Anyone in the public care to speak at this time?

All 500 of you. All right. 498. I see no one.

Anything else to come before this council today?

We stand adjourned.





DISCLAIMER:

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