Continued… part 2 of 2
[motion carried unanimously]
I'm trying to see what I can work around here.
On public hearings, continued public hearing on item 3, we requested a delay for 30 days.
Motion by Mr. Buckhorn, second by Ms. Alvarez, on item 3.
This has been a request for this for 30 days.
This would also be mid may.
>> no.
May.
>>Charlie Miranda: I wanted to see how much you were awake.
That's February.
Every council member here is smarter than me.
See how they caught me.
And they're still all awake.
>> and receive and file the memo.
>>Charlie Miranda: Item Number 4 is also a continuation of a public hearing.
Are those parties here?
Let's do Item Number 4.
>> James Cook, Land Development coordination.
Petitioner is requesting to vacate a portion of elm street and wellington Avenue and two alley ways running from Florida Avenue to wellington Avenue, line between hiawatha street and Sligh Avenue.
Petitioner agreed to conditions as requested by department of Public Works, Florida d.o.t., City's real estate department.
>>Charlie Miranda: they want to continue this here also.
I just got a notice.
4.
>> I’m sorry.
>>Charlie Miranda: I made a mistake once and I was wrong.
Item Number 4, I need a motion for continuation to week of February the 7th, whatever Thursday that is.
It might even be that Thursday.
Motion by Mr. Buckhorn.
Second by Ms. Saul-Sena.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor of the motion, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Receive and file the memo.
Motion by Ms. Miller.
Second by Ms. Saul-Sena.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
With council's permission, I would like to take a recess till 10:30.
[ recess ]
>>Charlie Miranda: City Council is called back in session.
Roll call.
>>Shawn Harrison: here.
>>Gwen Miller: here.
>>Rose Ferlita: here.
>>Charlie Miranda: here.
I'm going to do item 2, if I May and then I’ll go back to the 10:30 on page 2.
Need to open public hearing item 2.
Motion by Mr. Harrison.
Second by Ms. Miller.
Further discussion?
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Item 2, page 2 is now open.
>> good morning, sam hamilton, City Attorney's office.
Just a couple of procedural matters.
I would like to file for the record the proof of publication affidavit for this particular hearing.
As I think you already know, this is a hearing that's required.
It has to be publicly noticed under the federal tax code.
What this is about is a proposed issuance by the City of Tampa of bonds for a privately run school which happens to be a charter school.
It's the trinity school for children.
This is, as in other deals that we have brought to you in the past is a conduit financing.
There is no responsibility of the City.
This is just a mechanism allowed under the internal revenue code for certain types of private parties to have tax-exempt financings done for their benefit, if you will.
If you have any questions, I’m here.
The representatives from the school as well as the underwriter and bond counsel.
And obviously, after the close of the public hearing, we do have on the agenda the resolution which approves all the financing documents and such.
I'm here again for any questions.
Obviously any comments from the public.
That's the purpose of the hearing.
>>Charlie Miranda: any questions at this time?
Motion to receive and file by Mr. Buckhorn.
Seconded by Mr. Harrison.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor, indicate by saying aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Anyone in the audience care to speak on this subject matter?
Item Number 2, page 2.
>> my name is moses knott, jr.
I reside at 2902 east ellicott street.
And I came up here to speak and when I be speaking, I must be speaking to the public.
Now -- 4 million dollar off the public school system.
Now turn around and build a private school and tell people they have to pay for it.
You know, I tell people, all you people -- when you get ready to do something, you can come and talk till you fall on the floor, preach, do whatever you want to do.
You all do what you want to do.
The public guinea pig.
This deal right here, I totally disagree.
I know they are going to do no good.
How in the world can jeb bush pass a law, I’m going to cut the public school four or five million dollars and then turn around and say I’ll put up all this tax money to build a private school.
That's a no-no.
Already we talk about we short our teachers and our regular schools already, medicine and everything being cut and turn right around and say we got short of money and then turn around and spend all of this money right here on a private school.
I went to -- private schools all over the country, people criticize regular public school, but I can't find nothing wrong with public schools.
I can't find not a thing wrong.
All my children go through public schools and they got a good education coming through public school.
But in private school here, I’m glad that deal went down -- when the governor pass this law about giving tax money to the private schools.
I'm totally against it.
I want the people to wake up and when voting time comes, I don't want nobody to forget about this thing.
And like I said, I can't wait to vote now.
All us poor peoples, we've been railroaded out a lot of stuff.
We want -- this time we come through, we want some politician to represent the poor, middle class and the rich.
Thank you.
>>Charlie Miranda: anyone else care to speak on this subject matter in.
>> briefly, gordon commee.
You seen what happened to that, another nonprofit corporation.
What you're doing when you agree to this sort of thing here is you're taking your responsibility and giving it to somebody else and wake up two years later and say whoops, but we never get any restitution from them.
You need to bond these people out.
Make them have a bond, if they do something wrong, then the public is not paying with another half cent tax again and again and again.
But bond all these corporations out.
The word children sounds good.
We're paying not 12 years now for a child to go through school, it's about 13 or 14 years.
So the people out there trying to save for their social security, their pills.
The pills just went up January by about 40%, you know.
So the cost of these elderly people and the peoples getting into that bracket, they cannot no longer stay in the race.
They are broke.
They are hurting, and their own government is doing nothing.
Zap.
So in this here, I don't know who Tampa school development corporation's board of directors are.
Has anybody put an fbi background check on them?
The Florida department of law.
It needs it, linda.
I'm going to tell you.
You've been doing this for many, many years.
Every time I’m up here speaking you either roll your eyes or huh.
Excuse me a minute, sir.
This has got to be addressed.
This is a public forum, is it not?
Mr. Miranda, isn't this a public forum.
>>Charlie Miranda: you're speaking.
You're the public.
>> thank you, sir.
I'll be out of here because your little whistle is going to blow on me.
Anyhow, we need to get it right the first time.
Not second and third and fourth time and then people come back.
It's always that case.
Since I’ve been in Hillsborough County since 1952 and, sir, I did come out of the projects also for a brief spell.
So I do know and I don't talk most of the time, I don't talk with a cue card because I don't have to.
I do know right and wrong is when they throw somewhat into the picture, then either one of them can be right and somebody is always losing and it's called a half-cent tax.
But this on a referendum.
Let's have an investigation on them.
>>Charlie Miranda: let me clear the air here.
No tax payer is responsible for this debt at any time.
No one in this audience, no one viewing this, no one reporting this, no one that's raising their family is responsible for this debt.
The City of Tampa is merely a pass-through agency for them to secure and pay their own debt.
There is no that I know of and many have gone through here ever, any city that I know of been held responsible for these types of debts.
Anything you would like to make in closing, sir?
>> yes, Mr. Chairman.
I'll just confirm that.
Just also for the record, in addition, the actual credit behind this transaction, bond holders that will be buying these bonds will actually look to the letter of credit provider.
Regions bank is providing a letter of credit.
They actually are the credit.
The bond holders don't even actually look directly at the credit of the school.
The school obviously is responsible for reimbursing the bank for any draws on letter of credit.
It's actually the bank, clearly not the City that's responsible for what -- you couldn't have said it any better.
>>Charlie Miranda: anybody else in the audience care to speak on item 2, page 2?
I see no one.
Motion to close by Mr. Buckhorn.
Second by Ms. Ferlita.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor of the motion, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Ms. Ferlita, would you kindly read the resolution?
>>clerk: you didn't have to read it.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Ms. Ferlita.
Second by Ms. Saul-Sena.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Thank you all very much for attending.
Appreciate it very much.
We're going to go -- in essence of time, I’ll hold five and six and I apologize for all those here.
But there are a couple of council members who May have to leave in 35, 40 minutes.
Item Number 7, appeal hearing on page 3.
It's a continued hearing.
I do not have to open that hearing.
It's already been opened some time back when it was done a few months ago.
So we have the presentation first by the City and then we'll go in.
>> good morning.
Jody schwahn, Legal Department.
With respect to this appeal at this time I would like to introduce john grandoff, who is the agent for the property owner who has a procedural we do raise before we can move forward with the appeal.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
>> good morning, Mr. Miranda, members of the City Council.
My name is john grandoff.
I practice law at hill, ward and Henderson, suite 3700, bank of america plaza.
I represent the project before you on this appeal.
I have reviewed the file that was filed by the appellant on taking this appeal, and I am of the firm opinion that the appeal cannot go forward this morning or at all or ever for several reasons.
In order to take an appeal in a land use case, an appeal of a variance, you must have standing.
You have to have an injury.
In this case you must have a special injury that's unique.
Others that were also notified within the surrounding property area.
The clearest example of a person with standing in a land use appeal is an adjacent owner.
The project will block my light.
The setback is too close to me.
The noxious fumes or the noise will be an impact on my property value.
I live next door.
I live within 150 feet.
You May recall in many rezonings we notify within 150, 200 feet, to notify those that would be directly affected, those that would have what's called special injury, special damages.
That's required under the common law of the state of Florida.
Your code allows any, quote, aggrieved person to take an appeal.
Aggrieved is not defined in the code; however, we look to the cases that have been decided on these types of issues, these zoning appeals determine what is aggrieved.
The cases have basically said what I just mentioned to you.
It's typically a surrounding owner.
Mr. Manteiga lives in the City of temple terrace.
His homestead is in temple terrace.
Giving him every benefit of the doubt, his business is 18 blocks away on 7th Avenue at the corner of 33rd street.
He is not suffering any special injury that is different from any other surrounding owner.
And I will also offer to you that no surrounding owner, no owner that was within the notice area has taken an appeal of this case.
The time to appeal has since passed.
I must tell you that Mr. Manteiga has no gripe of special injury before you this morning and I would ask that you pass a resolution dismissing the appeal with prejudice and that it not be heard at any time, if ever.
Thank you very much.
I reserve any time for rebuttal if necessary.
>>Charlie Miranda: I want to ask the Legal Department something.
This case has been appealed maybe four or five times, if I recall.
Some by one party, some by another party.
The question that was posed by Mr. Grandoff to us saying that the time has expired for any appeal.
Has the time really expired for any appeal.
>>James Palermo: the time expired as to the first decision made by the blc, namely the height variance.
The time has not expired to appeal the certificate of appropriateness that was issued on I believe December 18th.
It would be 30 days from the 18th.
So that appeal is still pending before you.
>>Charlie Miranda: Mr. Buckhorn and Mr. Harrison and Ms. Saul-Sena in that order.
>>Bob Buckhorn: I don't know if Ms. Schwahn was about to do this, does our Legal Department has a position as to whether or not the petitioner is an aggrieved party or not and has standing?
Going right to the heart of this, I think we'll know one way or another whether or not we are able to proceed.
>> I think that would be appropriate for your counsel to answer.
>>James Palermo: Ms. Schwahn represents the blc.
>>Bob Buckhorn: thank you, Ms. Schwahn.
>>James Palermo: we were notified by Mr. Grandoff late yesterday afternoon, his letter.
We researched it.
We are of the initial opinion that he is correct.
Several factors to consider, namely the special injury to Mr. Manteiga as opposed to the same injury being sustained by all people in general.
We look at the case.
We look at where he lives, where his business is and was he within the notification area.
Because usually those within the area to be notified have the ability to appeal a decision of the blc.
In fairness to him, since this just came up yesterday, I believe that the council should at least give him the opportunity to explain why he feels he has some special injury that would allow him to appeal this decision.
Either today or at some other appropriate time.
But our initial conclusion, based on the case law in the state of Florida, is that he does not have standing to bring this appeal and the appeal should be dismissed.
>>Charlie Miranda: we will continue with the process in a second.
Let me answer two more council members.
I have Mr. Harrison and Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>Bob Buckhorn: if I could just ask Mr. Palermo a follow-up question.
In the event that based on your recommendation, Mr. Manteiga is determined not to have standing, somebody still has the ability to appeal the certificate of appropriateness.
And Mr. Miranda's question was, it was a 30-day window that has not expired yet.
>>James Palermo: that's correct.
>>Bob Buckhorn: conceivably somebody could file an appeal that was determined to be an aggrieved party.
>>James Palermo: with standing.
>>Charlie Miranda: like I said said earlier.
Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: thank you.
With all due respect, Mr. Palermo, I absolutely disagree based on the way that we -- as a policy in this city notify, for example, civic organizations when somebody petitions, for example, a special use in their neighborhood.
We have said that not only is the immediate neighbor impacted when something is done, but the community is impacted.
And our -- the City's neighborhood department has been very helpful in keeping lists of neighborhoods and making sure that neighborhoods are identified and that the neighborhood, the surrounding community is impacted by certain decisions.
And your assumption that the neighborhood -- that you have to be physically adjacent -- it's not yours, excuse me.
It's Mr. Grandoff's.
I apologize for that.
Mr. Grandoff is the one who said that nobody but the physically adjacent neighborhoods are impacted by a decision, I not only think that's incorrect, but I think that the City has been functioning on the assumption for quite some time that the neighborhood has standing.
That's why we built it into many of our land use regulations.
And I think that's a really significant question and requires a lot more thought before we weigh in on it.
>>Charlie Miranda: Mr. Palermo.
>>James Palermo: in theory you're correct as to what you're speaking to, Ms. Saul-Sena.
You're speaking of zoning hears before this board.
Anyone can appear before a zoning hearing and express their opinion.
They don't have to be within the noticed area.
They don't have to deal with any special interest.
We're dealing here with an appeal.
It's a totally different animal.
Our code says in section 27-183, any aggrieved party May appeal the variance decision.
Now, the code does not define what an aggrieved party is, so you have to go to the case law to determine what the courts have said an aggrieved party is.
And that's what we've just told you.
They have to have some special interest, not like everyone else in the community.
Namely like an adjoining property owner or even, say, a mortgagee of a piece of property within a noticed area.
But in this case and, again, I think we should hear from the appellant to see how he wants to address this issue, but in this case, on the surface, it appears there is no special injury.
There is no standing.
Certainly does not have adjacent property and go to the extent that his property and I’m not sure if he owns where his newspaper is, but it's not within the barrio latino district.
It's outside.
So with all those factors, we concluded that there is truly no standing to bring this appeal before the City Council.
We're certainly willing to listen to him to see if he's got anything to add to this.
>>Charlie Miranda: I have Mr. Harrison and then Mr. Buckhorn.
>>Shawn Harrison: Mr. Manteiga is chomping at the bit.
Is this an appeal of the original blc decision or is this an appeal of the certificate of appropriateness.
>> this is an appeal of the height variance.
And what I would like to address is not that, but address the issue before us right now.
>>Shawn Harrison: well, I just want to understand, is this -- so this is not a certificate of appropriateness appeal, so whatever happens today, that time has not yet run.
This is an appeal of a different issue.
>>James Palermo: right.
The certificate of appropriateness, I think that time runs January the 18th.
Is that correct?
>> right.
Because the decision was on December 18th and the code provides for 30 days on the certificate of appropriateness.
With the variance, they have seven days to appeal.
And all the people according to the transcript that spoke in opposition, not a one were within the 150 foot notice area.
The variance was timely.
>>Bob Buckhorn: Mr. Palermo, the appeal on the certificate of appropriateness versus the appeal of a petitioner on the height variance, if an individual that was aggrieved and defined as legally permissible were petitioned or were to appeal this certificate of appropriateness, would that open up to a larger degree this discussion?
And the merits of the petitioner's case as opposed to us just dealing with the height variance?
>>James Palermo: would take the whole thing into consideration.
>>Bob Buckhorn: potentially, if I were somebody inclined to contest this, I would rather be contesting the certificate of appropriateness than just the height variance.
>>James Palermo: if you were so inclined, yes.
>>Bob Buckhorn: second question is, going to Ms. Saul-Sena's issue, I mean, we have this discussion of standing all the time when we debate the notification issue.
And I think we are very good about notification and communication, but we also understand and Mr. Harrison has reminded on a number of occasions that people who have standing, there is a strict legal definition as to what standing is and who is affected.
So we can't confuse what we try to do in terms of communication by notifying everybody about a zoning and those who we have determined to have legal standing.
I mean, is that what we have done historically?
>>James Palermo: absolutely.
We're dealing with two different types of hearings.
Your zoning hearings, everybody, quote, has standing to come up and talk.
On appeal, that's narrowed down to an affected party or an aggrieved party.
>>Bob Buckhorn: if I were in Mr. Manteiga's shoes, one could potentially, if somebody could be found to appeal this that has legal standing, look at this as an opportunity as opposed to a hurdle.
>>James Palermo: I would think so.
>>Bob Buckhorn: by virtue of the certificate of appropriateness being expanded.
And the debate being expanded.
>>James Palermo: as Ms. Schwahn said, no one within the 150-foot notice area has complained about this decision.
So that would weigh heavily on who the appellant would be.
>>Mary Alvarez: just a question and this is probably a little bit off center from what we're talking about now.
Could the state actually come in on this appeal and say the department of interior were the national historic designation be affected by what's happened here?
Could they come in and check to see if the integrity of the historic district is being derailed because of this type of building that's being put in.
Could they come in?
>>James Palermo: I truly don't know the answer to that, Ms. Alvarez.
I would say think they could come and look at anything and look at the historic district and make whatever recommendations they care to make after looking at it.
But I don't know what power they might have.
Relative to the district.
>>Mary Alvarez: would that be something that we as a council, since we don't have any other Avenue on this appeal and Mr. Manteiga doesn't look like he's got standing.
>>James Palermo: I think any citizen aggrieved by this, if that is an available option, they could certainly contact the agency and request an investigation.
>>Mary Alvarez: how about the City?
If the City owns property within that area, could we do this?
>>James Palermo: that's an interesting question, because it's a city agency that issued the opinion.
>>Mary Alvarez: the City being the barrio la tina -- latino.
>>James Palermo: yes, ma'am.
They have the City appealing the City decision.
It's happened in the past.
I would think we could do it, certainly.
>>Mary Alvarez: if we owned the property within -- in the area.
>>James Palermo: if you're an aggrieved party, I think you have the right to appeal.
>>Charlie Miranda: like the parking garage.
>> yep.
Ms. Miller.
>>Gwen Miller: thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It has been stated and I think agreed that we can hear what Mr. Manteiga is going to say.
I would like to listen and see what he has to say.
>>Charlie Miranda: the floor is yours.
>> I appreciate that.
I never stayed that quiet that long in my life.
I believe I do have status.
I do believe I have special status.
First of all, this is not a one-size-fits-all definition of standing.
We have a national historic landmark district.
And that district has a national interest.
It's been ranked as a treasure to our nation, to our state, to our city.
This isn't some little neighborhood issue.
This is a threat to our national historic landmark district.
And I believe I have standing in that as I believe every citizen does, for an appeal.
I also have a historical standing.
Our newspaper, La Gaceta, my newspaper and my family have for 80 years worked to preserve and protect the latin heritage of our community.
We have worked to preserve and protect Ybor City.
We have a long-term standing.
There are some cases of environmental law where people a thousand miles away have the ability to file an appeal and have standing.
The sierra club does it all the time because the environment has been deemed to be a larger interest than just the 150 feet.
And in this case, the Ybor City is a bigger interest to this community than 150 feet.
You cannot have a one-size-fits-all.
Mr. Grandoff would like you to believe so, but I do not believe that it's true.
If they were to paint the washington monument pink tomorrow, I believe I have standing to say I don't like it, to go up there and try and do something about it.
It's a national monument.
We have a national treasure here.
So I believe the City Council has the ability to expand who has standing.
The other thing is, you guys accepted my check for filing the appeal.
You have continued my case over and over again and I appreciate that.
So I think to some degree, the council has given me standing.
Also, the City just this week expanded the definition of standing a little bit at a vrb meeting.
The assistant City Attorney representing the vrb gave a legal opinion that a member of the community affected by an overlay district had the right to testify in the appellate process as to whether the intent of the overlay district is as related to a project at issue.
Here you had somebody not within 150 feet testifying at an appellant hearing in front of the vrb and the same department that just gave you the ruling that I have no standing gave somebody some standing in that case.
Also, I have a detrimental reliance on the blc and on the City legal staff.
I talk to them about my standing.
I talk to them about my application.
I talk to them about my notices.
I went through the hoops they put in front of me.
And I met those obligations.
Land corporation, ken kroger, if they had this issue, they could have brought it up before we had our first continuance.
They have waited till today to bring it up.
I think it's quite -- I think it shows a lack of respect for the process and for the public good.
They brought this to the City Attorney I believe yesterday.
They could have brought this up beforehand.
They brought it up at a time frame to create a problem.
The City Attorney's office hasn't had an extensive time to look at this.
I got no notice at all, luckily I got a little bird in my ear last night and was able to prepare something here.
>>Charlie Miranda: that was a big bird.
I know who it was.
>> but I believe that the City would be acting in bad faith in my case not to let me have my day.
I went through the hoops.
I did it all.
I paid my money and this is a bigger issue than 150 feet.
There is no ability for the public to have any input into the blc if this is the case.
>>Charlie Miranda: let me do two things.
First of all, for the record, I need your name and address.
>> patrick manteiga, 10905 teresa arbor drive.
>>Charlie Miranda: the next question I’m going to ask the Legal Department is this.
Since earlier we discussed that the City has or might have standing in any subject matter because we are within 150 feet, then the question that I’m going to pose to me is one that will be, in my mind anyway, something that could solve this problem.
If we, the City, own that property, and in essence that property is bought with taxpayer money, is the taxpayer entitled to be part of that process?
To have standing.
>>James Palermo: on which property?
>>Charlie Miranda: on any property.
The parking garage, whatever.
City property.
It is not owned by an entity that's in space.
Its owned by the citizens who brought it up to get that done and then it would be since the citizenry gave us the empowerment to build that garage, are they entitled to the same empowerment to ask?
>>James Palermo: I realize.
My opinion is that if there is an aggrieved party in that factual situation, it would be the City of Tampa as the owner of the property.
I think it would be a quantum leap to say taxpayers because they support the project are aggrieved parties for the purpose of an appeal.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I just want to bring up that when we were sworn in several years ago as new council members I brought up the fact that when I served on council before, City Council itself had separate legal counsel from the City of Tampa.
And I discussed it with Mr. Palermo.
And he said that it's the administration's policy now that we not have separate counsel, but this particular case shows how useful it would be if we as counsel members were to have a City Council attorney to turn to for advice who is separate from the City Attorney.
I just want to say I feel like I’m in a very awkward position, not being an attorney myself and feeling that the City sort of has a conflict within itself in answering these questions.
>>Rose Ferlita: Ms. Saul-Sena, I just want to ask you a question back.
And I understand you always had that concern and you brought it up early on.
However, Mr. Palermo, correct me if I’m wrong, even if our -- even if we had an attorney simply representing us, would it not be ultimately your decision that would stand?
>>James Palermo: absolutely.
That's the way the charter reads.
>>Rose Ferlita: based on the charter, exactly.
>>James Palermo: and to go further with that, the distinction, Ms. Saul-Sena, I don't think holds.
I would give City Council or the administration the same opinion.
It's not going to change by who asked for the opinion.
>>Charlie Miranda: I have Mr. Buckhorn and Mr. Harrison.
>>Bob Buckhorn: Mr. Palermo, and I guess I apologize.
We're asking you questions that you May or May not have a chance to research.
Understanding that you May have two city agencies taking very different positions on this issue, hypothetically, what would the process be?
If we were inclined to give or to have a full hearing on the merits of this particular situation, on the certificate of appropriateness and the City was the aggrieved party, by virtue of owning the property, the parking garage or some other property surrounding that location, what is it that we would have to do to make that happen?
>>James Palermo: let me think about that a minute.
Obviously the administration in this case would be the mayor, and I presume the Mayor would request a resolution authorizing him to file a notice of appeal before this board.
One process.
>>Bob Buckhorn: in effect, you would have the Mayor appealing a decision of the bl ....
>>James Palermo: the City in the past has appealed decisions of the board that were contemporary to the City.
>>Bob Buckhorn: the vehicle is in place for us to do that.
>>James Palermo: I’m not sure that's the way to do it as far as resolution of the mayor.
That would be the process.
>>Bob Buckhorn: request of the Mayor that we enter into this as a petitioner and appeal the decision of the blc.
To do so within a time frame allowed, thereby appealing the certificate of appropriateness which would allow us to debate the entire situation, not just Mr. Manteiga's height variance which is one small part of it.
>>James Palermo: it would come before you in the same manner this comes before you, the record below.
You really can't expand.
All you can do is take the record below.
If you find there's no competent, substantial evidence to support the decision of the board, then you have the ability to reverse, remand, modify or dismiss.
>>Bob Buckhorn: well, I mean, I don't know what the council members want to do, I guess we can lay that on the table as one point.
>>Shawn Harrison: I apologize not having an opportunity to research some of these questions.
But number one, is La Gaceta within the geographical boundaries of the community redevelopment area of Ybor City?
>>James Palermo: to my knowledge, no, sir.
It is on the east side of 22nd street.
>>Shawn Harrison: would a taxpayer who is paying into a special tif fund within the CRA area of Ybor City have a little bit -- would that be more of an impetus to grant a standing rather than just a general tax payer in the City of Tampa.
>>James Palermo: I think you have to come back to what the case law requires, and that's basically some special injury, not in common with others.
So if they could show that, certainly they would have standing.
Whether they're within or without the 150 feet notice area, if they can show a special injury to them that is unique, then I think they would have standing.
But if it's in common with all others, then, no, they would not have standing.
>>Shawn Harrison: if I might follow up.
That I think it is unfair having less than 24 hours' notice to Mr. Manteiga to make him come in at this point and argue why he should have standing.
I think he needs to consult with an attorney to try to assist him with that argument.
And I would have no problem -- I hate to do it -- but continuing this again to give him an opportunity to argue that he has standing.
I don't think he's shown today that he does have standing.
And I caution my colleagues to go against the advice of counsel here.
That's a dangerous thing.
And counsel has said that based on what he has done so far, Mr. Manteiga does not have standing.
>>Charlie Miranda: I’ve got Ms. Ferlita, Ms. Alvarez, and Ms. Saul-Sena.
In that order.
And I agree with everything that's been said.
And we're not at all looking at the Legal Department for being the bad guys.
They're the ones that received the same notification that we have on very short notice.
They didn't receive it till yesterday sometime late in the afternoon.
Because I was advised of this about 6:00 in the evening.
And then the Mayor and I met unannounced by coincidence and we discussed this last night at about 9:00 at night.
Ms. Ferlita.
>>Rose Ferlita: well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Harrison, I agree with you.
I don't think we're doing anything to try to impede an ethical professional opinion of our City Attorney.
I think he's right and it's substantiated by case law.
But going another way, I like what Mr. Buckhorn is suggesting because we have found an aggrieved party being the City of Tampa.
What I want to know further than what you suggested, you're saying we should probably submit this in the form of a request to the mayor.
I have no idea what his pleasure is.
So if he decides no, what other mechanism do we have to go forward even if it's not based on his decision to do that?
We're going back to "we think you should do this" but it's his decision.
Say he says no, what other mechanism can we use as the legislative branch of the City of Tampa to take Mr. Manteiga's place and go forward and still meet the deadline.
>>James Palermo: I’m not prepared to answer that.
I'll give you a preliminary that based upon the charter I think your duties are defined and you are the legislative branch of the City.
So I don't believe you have any appellate rights on a matter pending before the City that's on the administrative side of the ledger.
>>Charlie Miranda: but you can request.
>>James Palermo: you can request, certainly.
>>Mary Alvarez: thank you.
It looks like we've already determined or we found that Mr. Manteiga doesn't have a leg to stand on and I’m sorry about that.
But I think we should make some arrangement for him to get a refund on his fee that he paid and for his time.
>>James Palermo: I tend to agree with what Mr. Harrison said.
The short notice, I think in fairness to all parties, he should at least -- and I know you hate to continue things -- at least be given the opportunity to consult with counsel and see if they have anything they want to present to the Legal Department that would should that he's got standing.
That's just in fairness to all parties.
>>Rose Ferlita: the deadline was when?
>>James Palermo: no, there's no deadline on this.
The deadline on the appeal for the certificate of appropriateness is January 18th.
Speaking of him seeking counsel and coming back and in some way showing us that our preliminary opinion is incorrect.
Certainly we would entertain that if counsel wants to continue this for a period of time.
>>Mary Alvarez: one more thing.
Then going to what -- if we grant the continuance for him to find legal counsel, could we in the meantime request that the administration look into doing an appeal?
>>James Palermo: yes, ma'am.
These are two separate appeals.
>>Mary Alvarez: can we make that into the form of a motion.
Could we do that?
I would like to make a motion that we ask the administration to appeal the blc case.
>>Charlie Miranda: be specific.
On the -- am I --
>>Mary Alvarez: certificate of appropriateness.
>>James Palermo: the only appeal still available for appeal is certificate of appropriateness.
>>Charlie Miranda: I have a motion by -- I have a motion by Ms. Alvarez.
Second by Ms. Saul-Sena.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Mary Alvarez: and on the same vein, to ask for a continuance for Mr. Manteiga to find legal counsel.
Could you find legal counsel by tonight?
>> I don't think my legal counsel would have a chance to prepare.
I believe my opponents here took a long time to prepare and decide to spring this on me at the last moment.
>>Charlie Miranda: which comes first, the love or the fairness?
>> in this case, I don't think either.
>>Charlie Miranda: I have Ms. Saul-Sena and Ms. Miller in that order.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: first, I want to let Mr. Palermo know that I really know -- it's just that I feel like we're in a Slightly schizophrenic mode right now.
I'm talking about departmentally, where different departments are having to take different tax.
So it seems to me that an entity that's probably had experience with this is the national trust for historic preservation who blesses national landmark districts.
And they have a very sharp Legal Department and perhaps we can ask them whether the fact that the -- that this is taking place in national landmark district, what kind of standing that brings to bear in this question.
And -- and I don't know who gets to ask them that.
>>James Palermo: the problem there, you got before you a height variance.
That's all you have before you.
You don't have design.
You don't have the final plan.
You have a height variance.
I don't know what the national trust could tell you about the height variance in a historic district.
I really don't.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: it's less the question of the height than the question of standing.
That's a question that concerns me greatly and that's something that I think separate from this particular height balance a question of standing I think is one that needs further review.
I guess I would like to ask the Legal Department to spend some more time looking at standing, particularly in view of a national landmark historic district.
>>James Palermo: that's fine.
And if council is inclined to continue this matter for the period that Mr. Manteiga needs to seek legal counsel.
>>Charlie Miranda: let me go through the council members.
I have Ms. Miller.
>>Gwen Miller: thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What I was going to ask Mr. Manteiga, since this was just sprung on you last night, how long do you think it will take you?
>> to find a lawyer with expertise in this and to be able to have him fit within my fee range, I’ll need about 30 days to be able to come back to you.
>>Gwen Miller: would 30 days be --
>>James Palermo: again, before you is the variance appeal and the time to appeal that decision has expired.
So that -- the time expires January 18th.
He has not appealed the certificate of appropriateness.
He's only appealed the variance.
That's what is before you today.
>>Gwen Miller: 30 days is not too long.
>>James Palermo: not for this, no.
>>Gwen Miller: you say you need to look into it too.
30 days.
>>James Palermo: that's fine.
>>Gwen Miller: that's fine for you too.
In that case, I would like to make a motion that we continue 30 days from today.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Ms. Miller.
Ms. Alvarez has a second on that for continuation for 30 days.
Any further discussion by council members on that subject matter?
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
It will be continued for 30 days.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: just review mary's motion --
>> audience: point of order, Mr. Chairman.
>>Charlie Miranda: I’ll get to you when I finish discussion with the council members.
>>Gwen Miller: Mr. Manteiga had something to say.
>> do you have a date for me?
>>clerk: February 7th.
>>Charlie Miranda: do I have to do any notice?
That notice was already extended one time.
That I think the publication by the City, I’m not a lawyer, would cover that notice since you already noticed them before.
February 7th at 10:30.
And I don't feel good that day.
>> I would like to amend my motion that I made for the administration for a day and time certain a couple of weeks.
We have a workshop on the 16th.
>>Charlie Miranda: we're going to discuss that also because that workshop is falling apart.
>>Bob Buckhorn: I think what Ms. Alvarez is attempting to do is make sure that the administration takes into consideration or makes a decision before the time frame for the certificate of appropriateness appeal expires.
>>Charlie Miranda: if she May just amend that motion to say that you like it done by the 18th, before the 18th of 2002.
January, 2002.
Ms. Alvarez has asked for addendum to her motion to ask the Mayor to make that request before the 18th of January, 2002.
And I have a motion made by Ms. Alvarez.
I have a second by Mr. Buckhorn.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Okay.
The public.
Yes, sir.
>> thank you very much.
I was so worried I wasn't going to get to talk so I put that point of order in.
I want to bring up the point here which is very, very serious.
It's the constitution, the three branches of government.
The executive, legislative and judiciary.
Mr. Palermo is setting in all three branches as we speak right now.
I did bring this up to the judicial watch at our meeting in miami on October 5th and 6th, and they are taking this under advisement, assigning it to an attorney to come on down to Hillsborough County and see what is going on.
The legislature does have the right to make a decision in this case and they don't have to turn to the attorney for an opinion, case in point, Mr. Palermo wanted to get that extra $5,000 a year payment --
[ sounding gavel ]
>>Charlie Miranda: that is not a part of the discussion of the variance.
It's not the subject here, sir.
And I’m going to give you a point of order.
This subject matter that we're discussing is the Ybor City location on 15th and 7th, which would be the southwest corner.
That's what we're discussing.
Please speak to that subject.
>> I’ll get back to that right now.
There is a standing here and the standing is the will of the people.
Again, under the constitution.
Now, not too long ago I came up here and Mrs. Ferlita at that time received and accepted with the vote of the board seven copies of the united states constitution.
I gave it to you at the time because I figured you're going to need it.
But apparently you're not listening to your own constitution.
There's three branches, the executive, which is Mayor --
>>Charlie Miranda: Mr. Palermo would like to speak.
>>James Palermo: as a point of order, this is an appeal to the City Council and this gentleman has no right to speak.
>> I have no standing.
I was in Ybor City since 1952 and I really love that area.
>>Charlie Miranda: well, the appeal is, sir, under those rules, only those that that discussion was based on, only those two parties can appeal before the council.
>> well, I’ll talk to Mr. Manteiga.
I know his father and himself.
They do love the Ybor City.
And they have that at their heart.
>>Charlie Miranda: that I understand and I appreciate you coming up.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Before I continue this, I would like to read -- I have a memo from Ms. Ferlita who had to leave.
Partial absence on 1/10 council meeting, absence from 1/10 6:30 council meeting.
I'll be unable to attend night council meeting on January 10, 2002, additionally depending on the length of the morning meeting, I May not be able to attend the meeting in total.
My cvs store is meeting for acquisition purchase by eckerd drugs.
I am the managing pharmacist of that store and am obligated to be there to a large extent.
The board of pharmacy require to dictate that I as a responsible party be witness to the transfer of medication, particularly controlled substances.
That requirement precludes my attending to the above-referenced meetings.
I apologize for any inconvenience this May cause you, my colleagues and any constituents in attendance.
Signed Rose Ferlita.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
I'm sorry, Mr. Grandoff.
>> john grandoff.
Just speaking briefly, I realize if I May have a few moments that the timing and the issue is unsettling to you this morning.
On the timing issue, our firm was recently retained.
We've been focused more on the certificate of appropriateness procedures that have been going on since December 18th.
On the issue, I want to just mention to you, the reason for the rule, especially Ms. Saul-Sena's concern, is very concerning to me also is the body of law is developed that you must draw the line somewhere.
Otherwise you would be overwhelmed constantly by people coming in and saying they are concerned.
The case is developed to basically say, once you get to the appeal stage, we're not in the zoning hearing any more of the variance.
Once you get to the appeal stage, we need to focus the issue and we need to know who is really harmed so that they have a legitimate gripe that May or May not be remedied.
That's why you have this special injury requirement, what makes you separate.
And again, I apologize for the lateness of it, but that's the reason for the rule.
Thank you for your time.
>>Charlie Miranda: we understand that.
No one is saying that you or your firm did anything to anyone.
We know you were retained on short notice also.
This hearing is concluded on this subject matter until February the 7th at the same hour, 2002.
Ms. Miller, would you read the sign-in sheet, please.
>>Gwen Miller: receive and file the department heads.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Ms. Miller.
Second by Ms. Alvarez.
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
We go to Item Number 5, continued public hearing on page 3 of the paradise development group.
>> James Cook, Land Development coordination.
Petitioner has requested to vacate a portion of elm street, wellington Avenue and two alleys from Florida Avenue to wellington Avenue in line between hiawatha street and Sligh Avenue.
Petitioner agreed to conditions requested by the department of Public Works, Florida d.o.t., City real estate department, Sanitary Sewer department, Stormwater Management, Time Warner, TECO people's gas, and Verizon.
Staff has no objection as long as the drainage and utility easement is reserved.
>>Gwen Miller: petitioner?.
>> good morning.
My name is david smith of gray, harris, robinson, 201 south frankland right across the street.
We represent paradise development group who is the applicant today.
You May recall, we were here, oh, a year or so ago with the walgreen's site on the water tower, which was not unanimously well received.
One of the suggestions that was made during that process that we can share with polite company is that we should move this site to somewhere else, which has existing development that's in need of being revisited perhaps upgraded.
We believe this site, which is at Florida and Sligh is that sort of a site as opposed to Florida and Byrd where the water tower site was.
You can see from the graphic that we have first, this shows you essentially from Florida Avenue what the site currently looks like.
Starting from the west, you have a picture of the street which I believe is the first picture in the upper left-hand corner and then adjacent to that, moving towards the south, that's the north boundary, you have a used car lot.
Next to the used car lot, as you continue to proceed to the south, you have a hotel, motel sort of.
It's a building.
It's a low, flat, kind of a salmon colored building and there's a street in between which is elm street and that is the street that we are here about today.
As you continue finally south from the motel, hotel, you will see another used car dealership.
Not exactly an idealic spot.
We believe putting a walgreen's in, it will be an enhancement visually and for lots of other reasons for the neighborhood.
Today we're here on the road vacation issue, nothing more.
We're seeking to vacate elm street and the two alley ways between elm street, runs between Sligh and hiawatha.
And the alleys are in the -- lots five and six, if you will.
We have staff approval.
Reviewing agencies approve with the exception of easement reservations which are fine.
It's in your report.
We understand we have to deal with those.
We met extensively with the neighbors and those in the neighborhood.
We have made significant changes in the plan to accommodate the constructive suggestions we've received.
If I could show you the next board, this is essentially the initial plan we had.
You will notice that there's an ingress and egress on the interior streets in the neighborhood.
That is a problem with some of the neighbors and understandably so.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: could you orient us on this board?
>> this is Florida Avenue right here.
This is Sligh Avenue.
Elm street is the street that shows up in dotted lines going right through here, continues on to elm as you continue east.
This is wellington and this is hiawatha.
So as you were looking at the photographs, you had used car, motel/hotel, used car.
And essentially, the areas -- some of the people at the meetings which I unfortunately did not attend, I was retained recently, there were concerns with this ingress and egress here which, of course, would go back on to wellington which is in the middle of the neighborhood.
There were also some concerns express with respect to hiawatha street.
I believe this would require a variance anyway.
It's not consistent with your code.
So what we've done, since we have to accommodate d.o.t. Or we can't do anything anyway, we met first with d.o.t.
And as of yesterday, they have approved some alterations to the ingress and egress to this site.
What they said they will do is they will allow ingress and egress here as opposed to further north and ingress and egress here.
This is right in and right out only, by the way.
Allow the closing down of the access on wellington and the access on hiawatha street.
We just got this approval yesterday.
This has not been addressed with the neighbors as of yet.
I would also remind that you this is subject to and contingent upon a rezoning which must be brought before this board.
The appropriate place to require site plan requirements such as these will be in the rezoning process.
Your staff wanted us to sequence this in this fashion and that if the site plan is not approved and the rezoning is not granted, the road vacation reverts.
So if we cannot provide accommodations that this board considers to be sufficient to satisfy all the concerns that you believe are appropriate, then any road vacation you approve today is vacated and becomes null and void.
We believe, therefore, that the issues, any additional issues that might be related to the site itself are more appropriately addressed at the rezoning hearing and I would reserve any additional time I have for rebuttal.
>>Gwen Miller: before we go, Ms. Saul-Sena?
>>Linda Saul-Sena: thank you.
First of all, I want to compliment you on changing your idea of site.
This is nonpristine land.
And what you're proposing I think seems as if it would be an improvement.
My question is, always that of protecting the neighborhood.
Even though what you're asking for here is a vacation of the street, I’m concerned about the relationship to the neighborhood.
And it appears that there's some kind of wall and I wondered if you could elaborate on that and I also wondered if there was a drive-thru as part of this proposal.
Even though I realize this isn't the rezoning but it's like one of the steps.
>> correct.
And I’m not as conversant with those issues, but I do believe there is a drive-thru.
That's correct.
There's a drive-thru contemplated, the site plan at this point does show a wall.
There will obviously be a need for significant buffering or you won't approve it.
I'm not conversant with the types of things we're prepared to propose.
That is not on your calendar as yet.
But we understand there's going to need to be additional kinds of considerations for neighborhood concerns.
>>Shawn Harrison: I do see some folks rising to speak on this, and I would just remind everyone where we're at right now is only on the vacation of the streets and that only comes into effect if we approve the rezoning which isn't even filed yet, as I understand.
So just keep that in mind.
>>Gwen Miller: now we go to the audience.
Anyone in the audience like to speak?
>> do we do in favor first and then oppose?
>>Gwen Miller: all together.
>> bill duval, 5408 branch Avenue.
I, too, would like a point of order.
Are you suggesting that we can't address specific issues of the project?
Just the closing?
>>Gwen Miller: correct.
We're just doing the closing.
Not doing the project now.
>> the fact that -- well, I’m here today as president of old Seminole Heights neighborhood association, and we oppose the project.
Now, how deeply you want to get into this, I’m asking for direction, because we are prepared with many, many people here to talk about that.
>>Gwen Miller: just the close of vacating those streets.
That's the only thing we're going to talk about today.
>> well, if I’m opposed to closing, what reasons can I give for the opposition.
If I can't speak -- do you want me to sit down.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: no, speak.
>>Shawn Harrison: if I might, at this point, what we're doing is really very theoretical as to whether or not these -- even if we grant this motion today, we only do it in the context of us in the future rezoning the property.
So if that never happens, what we're doing today doesn't happen either.
So if there's some reason apart from this project, the walgreen's, that you all think that these roads shouldn't be vacated, that's what you should talk about here today.
But the walgreen's rezoning isn't even in front of us right now.
So we can't -- we can't ask them questions.
We can't, you know, try to get them to do anything with that particular rezoning.
>> would it be appropriate then for me to fast-forward and say we would like to continue this until the land use change and zoning so that we can present the issues that concern us.
>>Gwen Miller: let's hear from our attorney, Mr. Morriss.
>> Morris Massey, Legal Department.
I think the problem that the petitioner faces is in order to move forward with the comprehensive plan changes and the rezoning change, the area that's going to be vacated included as part of their site also has to be subject to those petitions.
And typically we require -- well, we always require that the vacating be final on the right-of-way before we rezone the area that was previously public right-of-way.
Now, oftentimes, these petitions go hand in hand.
You will hear the vacating the day that you hear the rezoning, but you hear the vacating prior to the rezoning so that you actually take action on the vacating prior to the rezoning and if it's council's pleasure to try to do that, I’m not sure from a staff perspective or from the petitioner's perspective where that could not be done.
And that would make more sense in this case, because really you don't want to vacate these rights-of-way unless you're going to go forward with the plan amendment and the rezoning.
It's a suggestion.
>>Gwen Miller: can we hear --
>> unfortunately, I was retained after the discussion with staff occurred.
This was a sequencing required by your staff.
And I’m not real sure why.
I agree I’ve done it in different jurisdictions differently in which we've had simultaneous hearings on two or three different approvals that were necessary.
One thing that is apparent, this really doesn't do anything in terms of committing this council to the rezoning and doesn't affect the neighborhood.
There is a clear reverter if we do not get the rezoning approved.
So I really don't think it matters either way.
I just don't want to have a problem if -- you know, we try to go forward with the rezoning and because part of the property be rezoned as a street, we're not in order or, you know, I’ve not researched that issue.
So it seems to me to just avoid getting hung up on a technicality and really having a full hearing for the neighborhood, the neighbors and the association, it seems to me it makes more sense.
You're vacating this contingent upon it coming back in front of you for a full and complete hearing where all these issues can be addressed.
I don't even know what some of those issues are.
We May be able to accommodate most of them.
So --
>>Shawn Harrison: I wouldn't vote for or against vacating these rights-of-way without some reason to do it.
And if that reason is not yet in front of us, then I think --
>> I’ve asked cook to please call our zoning staff to find out if there's a reason that I’m not aware of why this needs to go forward today.
Because if it doesn't, it really makes sense for this to come -- I mean, they would be different -- you'd have to take actions at different times and you would have to take the vacating before you took the plan amendment and the zoning change, but we have -- this council this body has done that on large projects before and I don't see why it could not be handled and that would make sense because you wouldn't have these folks coming down here several times on several different petitions.
The staff report, just for council's information, does require, as the petitioner's counsel has stated, that if for any reason the rezoning in the comp plan change does not take place with the project, that the vacating ordinance becomes null and void and the land would revert back to public right-of-way.
So that, in fact, is correct.
>>Gwen Miller: Mr. Cook is coming back now.
>> James Cook.
I just talked to gloria.
Gloria doesn't recall ever advising them to spread it out like this.
They might have been told they needed to vacate prior to the land use amendment and the rezoning.
Normally we do them concurrently.
But with the land use, they still have to go through a land use amendment, maybe we told them to do the land use because of that they have to vacate way ahead of time.
I don't know.
She doesn't recall advising them to do it this way.
We normally do them together.
>>Mary Alvarez: I would like to make a motion that we continue this.
>> it makes sense just to continue to figure out exactly where we're at first.
>>Mary Alvarez: I’m sorry.
My apologies to the neighbors.
It just doesn't seem right that we go forward with so many questions up in the air.
>>Gwen Miller: if they speak today, they can't speak at the next meeting.
Can they speak on this today and then come back again?
>>Morris Massey: typically, what -- the tact this council has taken is once they have addressed the merits of the petition, you don't allow them to speak again.
However, could I suggest maybe council take -- maybe a one-week continuance on this and I’ll be happy to take the names of the various people here and if it's determined that we will hear this concurrently, we will notify you all so you won't have to come down numerous times and we'll have this continued then at the time of the comp plan amendment and rezoning, if it has to be heard in advance because of the comp plan amendment which is the issue that I don't know the answer to frankly.
Then we'll let you all know and make sure you are all here at the hearing and you can address the merits of the vacating petition.
>> steve gluckman, would it be appropriate to present data that hasn't come from city staff?
For example, we're prepared to --
>>Gwen Miller: that's what I’m saying.
>> it's directly related to the closure.
>>Gwen Miller: we're going to do the closure and rezoning at the same time.
We'll make a motion to continue to do that.
Did you set a time and date?
>>Linda Saul-Sena: one week and then we'll continue it after that.
>>Gwen Miller: we have a motion and second to continue for one week.
All in favor of that motion say aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
So we'll be back in one week to hear this.
Mr. Massey will take your names and we can talk about it.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I just -- I need to address the meeting we've planned for next Wednesday night before we lose a quorum, it's tremendously important.
>>Shawn Harrison: we have four here.
I wouldn't mind taking a five-minute break if we could.
We're going to lose a quorum if I --
>>Gwen Miller: three minutes for a break.
[ recess ]
>>Gwen Miller: Tampa City Council is called back to order.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: here.
>>Shawn Harrison: here.
>>Gwen Miller: here.
>>Mary Alvarez: here.
>>Gwen Miller: Ms. Saul-Sena, you have something?
>>Linda Saul-Sena: it's just so important, I want to be sure to bring this up.
Next Wednesday, we're -- we've scheduled a council meeting, but we've also scheduled a public hearing about the redistricting of district 4, which I represent at the same time.
And I wanted to make sure -- I want to reschedule the City Council meeting so that we're able to proceed with the conversation about district 4.
It's Wednesday --
>> right now, scheduled for the 16th.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: correct.
I'll reschedule the council meeting for whenever.
>>Gwen Miller: the 24th I have redistricting.
>>clerk: it's a workshop.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: perhaps we could do it on the 17th.
It was a workshop I believe on minority business.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I believe that everybody wanted it to be an evening meeting to allow the public to participate.
We don't have a meeting that Thursday night so -- the 17th.
A Thursday night.
>> is that too short of notice?
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I don't think so.
We were planning on -- we can meet again tonight.
>>Shawn Harrison: there's a lot of people interested in that.
You May have to help get the word out over there.
>>Gwen Miller: has the notice gone out for Wednesday night?
>>Linda Saul-Sena: or you could go ahead and have it Wednesday night.
>>Gwen Miller: could we check with curtis lang?
And then tonight he can let us know what date to change it to.
We're going to cancel it but let curtis give us a date.
>>Mary Alvarez: on the 24th, we only have seven, three continued land zonings, rezonings.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: okay.
Maybe we can schedule it for then.
All it takes is one controversial one.
>>Gwen Miller: let's check with curtis lang and find out what would be convenient for him.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: with the -- would the clerk's office take the initiative to call and make him aware of the conflict?
I would like to move to cancel the meeting on the 16th.
>>Gwen Miller: it has been properly moved and seconded to cancel workshop on the 16th.
All in favor of that motion, say aye.
And the clerk, we're going to contact Mr. Lang and let us know tonight what date would be convenient.
Now we go to the public hearing, Item Number 6.
It's been properly moved and seconded to open the public hearing on Item Number 6.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
>> James Cook, Land Development coordination.
Petition is requesting to vacate a portion of church Avenue running from bay Avenue to ohio Avenue, in line between Dale Mabry and grady Avenue.
Staff has no objections as long as the drainage and utility easement is reserved.
>> ron mcduffy, 3911 west bay Avenue, Tampa.
>>Gwen Miller: anybody here in the audience like to speak on it?
It has been properly moved and seconded to close the public hearing.
All in favor of that motion, say aye.
Mr. Harrison, would you read the ordinance.
>>Shawn Harrison: move an ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing and abandoning and abandoning a certain right-of-way, portion of church Avenue, williams street, lying between bay Avenue and ohio street and Interbay subdivision a subdivision in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, same being more fully described in the section herein, subject to reservation of a certain permanent easement as more particularly described herein, providing an effective date.
>>Gwen Miller: all in favor of the motion, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Item Number "a," unfinished business.
Mr. Morris Massey, do you have an ordinance for us for the marjorie park?
>> we've asked for a 30-day continuance.
>>Gwen Miller: properly moved and seconded to continue item "a."
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Mr. Massey, what date?
>>Mary Alvarez: would you make sure when you come back that the sea plane --
>> one of the reason we asked for a 30-day extension, we're going to add virtually all the property the City has acquired over the last couple of years for park purposes into the dedicated parks ordinance which includes the sea plain basin and also the agreeing properties in the fort brook property and property in new Tampa as well.
And I think the administration wanted the ability to tell people when it was coming before you all so there would be a chance for everyone interested to be at the public hearing when this ordinance was presented to council.
>>Gwen Miller: can we get a motion to continue item c?
It has been properly moved and seconded.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
That concludes our agenda.
We'll start with information from council members.
Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: nothing.
>>Shawn Harrison: madam chairwoman, a couple of things, first I would like to prepare a commendation for claude lee dixon a resident of sulphur springs.
>>Gwen Miller: properly moved and seconded.
All in favor of the motion, say aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Shawn Harrison: second item, we learned at the mpo meeting this past week that hartline is cutting Sunday service on some of their routes.
And as you know, the council just voted to give hartline $250,000 for Sunday service and they've already done it with the County commission.
I would simply like hartline to come in and give an explanation to the City Council, what is being cut and what impact that is going to have on -- well, frankly, we gave them $250,000 under the assumption that we were going to continue full Sunday bus service and I would like to know what's being cut and are we going to get a refund out of any of our 250,000.
>>Gwen Miller: they're not cutting Sunday, they are cutting weekends.
>>Shawn Harrison: well, that includes Sunday.
>>Gwen Miller: the holidays.
I made a mistake.
They are cutting holidays.
>>Shawn Harrison: that's not what we heard at the mpo.
Two weeks is fine if we're not too busy.
>>Gwen Miller: come in during department heads?
9:00, after department heads.
>>clerk: you have a 9:30 public hearing.
10:00 public hearing.
>>Gwen Miller: 9:15?
Okay.
9:15 in two weeks.
All in favor of that motion, say aye.
Opposed nay.
>>Shawn Harrison: that's it.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: Ms. Ferlita asked me to put on our pending calendar a recognition of of adella gonzmart and all she contributed to the City of Tampa.
Ms. Ferlita asked if we could do some sort of recognition or commendation posthumously for adella gonzmart.
>>Gwen Miller: we have a motion and second.
All in favor, aye.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I think she had something in mind.
She wanted me to bring it up during new business.
>>Mary Alvarez: I have nothing.
>>Shawn Harrison: move to continue the pending calendar.
>>Gwen Miller: properly moved and seconded to continue the pending calendar.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
Anything else?
Council adjourned till 6:30.