continued... part 2 of 3
And we have a crowded schedule in the afternoon.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can't put it on the one with 12?
>>GWEN MILLER: May 22nd.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That would be fine.
>>GWEN MILLER: That's more than 30 days.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess I'll amend the motion to put it in the evening motion on May 22nd.
And look for a second on that.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I would not be in favor of that.
I think that's doing an undo burden upon the petitioner.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We'll do it on the 8th and we'll have all dinner.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do it on the 8th within the 30 days.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Turanchik has already said that he's representing the neighbors that are in that block and they were amenable to what we discussed back then or whenever it was.
And I don't think he wants to come back for a night meeting.
So I won't support that motion.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yeah, me neither.
The neighbors who are most directly impacted by this are well aware of this.
They are all in favor of it.
We've veted this fully in one public hearing.
What we're doing is giving Mr. Dingfelder and Ms. Miller the opportunity to review everything fully for their own benefit, not for the continued benefit of the neighbors.
So what you all will find out here is 17 meetings in one night is going to keep us here quite late.
And none of us are eager to add one more, especially if they are not the ones requesting that we do it at night.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Harrison, I'll accept that as a friendly comment and I'll amend my motion to take it to a morning -- take it to a morning meeting.
I believe that it's one, two, three, four of you heard this.
Three of us didn't.
And three of us didn't.
I believe out of fairness we deserve as opportunity as suggested by Ms. Saul-Sena to review a tape and to hear from everybody involved.
This is not just about people on that street.
It's about a grand tree.
And that's people across the city have a vested interest in the grand trees.
So I'll amend my motion again to look for a morning meeting out of deference to your comments.
>>GWEN MILLER: 30 days --
>>CLERK: May 1st is 30 days.
>>GWEN MILLER: That's the first meeting.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: May 1st it is.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just for clarification, Madam Chairman.
With all courtesies extended to Mr. Dingfelder but support building Harrison's idea, I don't understand how this would be something that would preclude the new Council members from becoming involved in terms of the tapes like you suggested be it heard in the morning or evening.
What I'm saying, they still have an opportunity to be briefed by this via the tapes.
So I really don't understand what the difference is about a morning and a night.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: No difference whatsoever.
Morning is fine.
I appreciate it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Are there any other comments?
Motion on the floor to continue item number 6 until May the 1st in the morning at what time?
9:30, May 1st.
All in favor of that motion, aye.
[MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY]
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In the meantime, I would like to make this proposed improvement on the site plan available to the petitioner to consider the relocation of the structure on his property.
Number 7.
Number 7 is already open.
Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on item 7?
Any comment from the audience?
Motion by Ms. Ferlita, seconded by Ms. Alvarez to close number 7.
All those in favor say aye.
[MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY]
>>GWEN MILLER: An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 3111 west DeLeon Street in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification PD to PD, providing an effective date.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's been a motion and second.
All those in favor, aye.
[MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY]
>>GWEN MILLER: Move to adopt number 7.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's been a motion and second to adopt.
Let's vote and record.
>>CLERK: Motion carried.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
Item number 8.
Anyone in the audience want to speak to item 8?
Is there a motion to close?
Motion by Mr. Harrison.
Seconded by Ms. Alvarez.
All those in favor, say aye.
Ms. Alvarez, would you take item number 8, please.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 3407 west Martin Luther King Boulevard in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications PD to PD, providing an effective date.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there a second to the motion?
Motion and second.
All those in favor, aye.
[MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY]
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to adopt number 8.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion and second to adopt.
Vote and record.
>>CLERK: The motion carried.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
We are going to not open the public hearings scheduled at 10:00 at this moment but move ahead to our consent agenda.
We'll hold on public safety until Ms. Ferlita returns.
Wait.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move item 12.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's been a motion and second to move -- all those in favor, aye.
[MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY]
Public works, Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move to approve items 13 and 14.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion and second to approve items 13 and 14.
All in favor, say aye.
[MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY]
Finance Committee, Mr. White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I make a motion we move 15 through 29.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: With a substitute for number 24.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I'm sorry.
Yes, substitute for number 24.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's been seconded by Mr. Harrison.
All those in favor, aye.
All knows opposition?
Passed unanimously.
Building, Zoning and Preservation Committee, Ms. Miller.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Move items 30 and 31.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there a second?
Second by Ms. Alvarez.
All those in favor, say aye.
>>GWEN MILLER: Move to receive and file item 32.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On 32, would you like to move that the recommendations be sent to legal to prepare the recommendations so that these people can be appointed?
>>GWEN MILLER: Can you do that?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We received a report -- Mr. HOSTA said they have a number of vacancies on the barrio.
They were waiting until the new Council and new commission were available -- we just changed the rules -- it used to be the Mayor got all the appointments.
Now we do.
We received some recommendations on this.
Is Mr. Acosta in the audience?
Could you come and explain the process?
Did you all receive the backup on this.
These are recommendations to us to make the appointments.
>> Del Acosta, manager of historic preservation for the City of Tampa.
On March the 28th, the method of appointment was altered -- well, actually, City Council voted on March 20th, on March 28th, the Mayor signed the ordinance whereby now Council appoints three City Council members -- three A.R.C. members and three B. L. C. members to the Architectural Review Commission and the Barrio Latino Commission.
And then on the A.R.C. right now, there are three positions that need to be filled.
Two of them are vacant and one of them has an incumbent in it.
What I did, I forwarded to you and this is on the Architectural Review Commission, the name of John Jones who is serving his first term, and at the pleasure of the Council, he can be reappointed.
The alternate is a position that is vacant right now, and I submitted to you a resume of Keith Roberts.
There is a third vacant position for the southeastern quadrant of the city.
I have not received any resumes to satisfy that position.
The southeast quadrant of the city generally speaking is that area south of Adamo Drive, so it would include Harbour Island and that portion with the port area and that portion of Palmetto beach south of Corrine Street and then goes along Adamo Drive to 34th street, the city limit.
Very limited residential area.
In the past, the two appointees to the A.R.C. have lived on Harbour Island.
I just have no resumes of anyone who has submitted an interest in that particular position.
I do have the two resumes for John Jones for second term and for Keith Roberts for his first term as an alternate.
That's on the A.R.C.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If it's appropriate at this time, I'll move to approve Mr. Jones and Mr. Roberts, in particular I would like -- I've known Mr. Roberts a long time and I know he has an extensive land use background.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any discussion?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Motion to prepare the resolution.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's been a motion and second to prepare the resolution.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: While we're at it, I think we received as an alternate for the Barrio Latino, Frank Cosentino.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let's deal with each board at a time.
There's a motion and second for Mr. Roberts and Mr. Jones.
Any more discussion on their proposals?
All those in favor, aye.
It passed unanimously.
Thank you.
>> On the Barrio Latino Commission, the commission has four BLC members to appoint.
And one alternate.
Right now, there are two vacancies.
One of them is for the Ybor City Chamber of Commerce and the other one is an alternate position which is a brand-new position.
That was created as part of the amendment.
I have resumes for mark downing and Fran Cosentino.
Both of them would satisfy the requirements because they are both members of the Ybor City Chamber of Commerce.
So you can assign them either way.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to move and fill those positions with Mark Downing and Fran Cosentino.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think Fran as the regular one and Mark as the alternate?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Fran as the alternate and Mark as the regular.
>> Is that the way you want to do it?
That's your decision.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, that's how your memo came back.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Alvarez, it's your call.
You get to decide --
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, then make them both regular members.
>> You have one vacant slot for an alternate, and you have one vacant slot for the Ybor City Chamber of Commerce.
You need to assign each one to one of those slots.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mark Downing for the Ybor City Chamber of Commerce.
Is that all right?
>> That's up to you.
That's your decision.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And Fran could he ten -- Fran Cosentino as the alternate.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second by Mr. White.
Any more discussion by Council members?
All those in favor, aye.
So that's passed to legal to prepare the resolution and it will appear back.
Mr. Acosta, isn't there one more board?
B. L. C., A.R.C. --
>> No, that's all I sent you recommendations on.
I only deal with two boards, Architectural Review Commission and Barrio Latino Commission.
That's enough.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Actually, what I would like to do is ask the city clerk to provide Council a list of any vacancies and openings which we are responsible for.
And also Mr. Acosta said we still have a vacancy for someone who lives in the Harbour Island, Palmetto beach area.
So if you all have constituents who are interested in these areas and who live in those prescribed areas, please come to us.
I believe Mr. Dingfelder, Harbour Island is your area and Mr. White, Palmetto beach is that -- ask your constituents who are interested in this.
It's public service at its finest.
Thank you.
There's been a motion to receive and file the memo and second by Ms. Alvarez.
All those in favor, aye.
It passed unanimously.
Thank you.
Transportation Committee, Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move item 33.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion and second for item 33.
All those in favor, aye.
[MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY]
>>GWEN MILLER: New business.
Set a public hearing for May 15th at 10 a.m. for items 34 and 35.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
There's been a motion and second to set the public hearing.
All those in favor, aye.
It passed unanimously.
We're going to return to our public hearings scheduled for 10 a.m.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open the public hearings.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's been a motion by Ms. Alvarez to open, seconded by Mr. White for public hearings -- actually, number 9 is a continued hearing.
Is there anyone from the public to speak on item 9?
>> James Cook, Land Development Coordination.
Petitioner is requesting to vacate an alley lying between central Avenue and Jefferson Street and lying south of Robles Street.
There's no objection as long as the utility easement is reserved.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question on that.
Is that within the historic district?
>> Yes, it is.
A.R.C. approved it I believe Monday or Tuesday night at their hearing.
That's why it was continued.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
Are requests for alley vacations within historic districts automatically sent to the --
>> They are part of the review.
We just missed their schedule.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you very much.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just for us newcomers, can you give us a little background on what the purpose was or what the public benefit is to vacating this?
>> Usually people come in to vacate it's overgrown, being dumped on or they have plans to develop the lot and the alley is not being used.
It goes through a formal review process.
There's about 14 different departments that review the alley.
If it's not needed for infrastructure purposes or access, we usually recommend to vacate it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about this one in particular?
>> I don't get out and look at every one of them.
There were no objections from any of the staff.
Just reserve a utility easement.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The petitioner is here.
Maybe can he address why he made the request.
>> Most of them are unimproved.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Foster, would you like to come up and address Mr. Dingfelder's question?
>> Mr. Dingfelder, could you restate your question, please, sir.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just give us a little background.
Two-minute background on this for my benefit, I would appreciate it.
>> We have a historic home that was built by the Blake family in 1899.
They owned the property for the full hundred years.
In fact, we had one of their descendants write a note saying that the easement it's never been used as an alley, it could be vacated.
Right now, it's caught between a number of our neighbors.
Nobody claims it.
All these years it ends up being a garbage pit.
We went and visited with every one of the people connected to this easement in any way and asked for their support.
And all have agreed.
So what we're trying to do is eliminate a problem.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It was an alley on paper only.
>> Only on paper.
It has never been used as an alley.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: David, can you come back and put your name on the record.
>> Thank you.
My name is David foster.
I live at 2826 North Central Avenue.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any other questions on item number 9?
There's been a motion to close by Ms. Alvarez.
Seconded by Mr. White.
All knows favor, say aye.
It passed unanimously.
Would you like to move this vacation?
>>GWEN MILLER: I make a motion that we send it to legal.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion by Ms. Miller.
Seconded by Ms. Alvarez.
Any more discussion on the motion?
All those in favor, aye.
It passed unanimously.
Thank you.
Item number 10, we've opened this public hearing.
No, we haven't.
Motion by Ms. Miller.
Second by Ms. Alvarez to open the public hearing.
>> James Cook, Land Development Coordination.
Petitioner is requesting to vacate an alley lying between Martin Luther King Boulevard and sell ma Avenue and running from Mayfield Avenue.
Staff has no objection as long as the utility easement is preserved.
He's an abutting property owner.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Does the petitioner want to come up and say anything?
Adjacent property owners, come up.
State your name and your concerns.
>> Tyrone Williams.
3922 North Central Avenue.
And I'm wanting to find out whether or not they want to close off the alley completely because my business is right in that alleyway and my customers use that alleyway to exit to the north as well as to the south from that alleyway.
I own the property there on Central Avenue and I also own property at 415 North Martin Luther King.
So my property -- I have two properties that border that alley.
And my customers from my business off of the Central Avenue location use that alleyway to exit.
To the south as well as to the north.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Perhaps Mr. Cook could come up and look at your property and see if it's impacted by this.
That I think would affect your opposition or support.
>> The alley that exists right now basically an L-shaped alleyway.
This north-south segment right here is what was previously vacated some type back.
Petitioner right here at the corner.
I believe their plans are to vacate the part that abuts their property.
But the code prohibits them from petitioning to dead end an alley.
They have to amend their Council only for this segment.
The rest it would remain open.
This gentleman's property faces Central Avenue at the corner.
If the entire alley is vacated it would impact him, yes, ma'am.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Now that you understand what portion is being proposed, what are your feelings about it?
>> It's okay.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
Thank you.
>> Good morning.
My name is George KORET.
And I own the property next to the petitioner's property.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would you mind showing us on the overhead?
Mr. Cook, could you help orient him.
>> He's correct.
>> That's the property I own and that's the alley.
That's the only way to come to my property because I have no room through MLK to get to my property.
If I drive in I have to come through the alley.
That's the only way I can get to my property.
I have no problem if this proposed -- as long as it pertains to their lot, it's okay.
But it has to be from here to this area.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm a little confused.
You can tell me -- show me how your car comes into your property.
>> We come through here and then goes this way.
This is Martin Luther King over here and there's no way I can come because there's no room for me to get a car unless I use the neighbor's driveway.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And out in question would be to staff perhaps or to everybody, have we heard from the property owners beneath the applicant on the other side of the alley?
Have we heard anything either written or in any way from those folks because it would appear that they -- if the applicant shuts off his half of the alley, then that alley is not going to be accessible to those folks on the other side of the alley.
>> That's correct.
All the abutting property owners are notified.
So if they had some concerns, they are required to show up here and voice their concerns.
We haven't gotten any phone calls or written.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
Sir, what you're saying is that you would --
>> I'm requesting not to close that alley.
It has to be kept open.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You would like the en -- entire alley kept open or if the petitioner kept the portion immediately adjacent --
>> The petitioner that part won't affect me.
The part from here to here, that will not affect me at all because that is his side of the property.
That can be done.
That's okay with me.
The only thing, from there on --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Needs to remain open to provide you access.
Okay.
Thank you.
Are there any other property owners who would like to speak on this?
Do Council members have any other questions?
Is there a motion to close?
Motion by Ms. Miller and second by Mr. Dingfelder to close.
Conversation among Council members?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: One thing, Madam Chairman.
Did Mr. Cook say that we have to vacate the whole alley?
We can just vacate.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Cook, could you please address that question.
>> The way the code is set up right now, when somebody petitions to vacate an alleyway they are -- they are required to come before Council and Council can amend that and accept only a portion of the alleyway.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for the clarification.
Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Obviously, we're all looking out for the public's interest, and this, unlike the alley in the prior petition, this particular alley seems to be fairly active.
We've now heard from two different adjacent property owners, not necessarily immediately impacted but closely impacted by this.
And I'm just wondering what is in the public's interest to vacate any portion of this particular alley.
It's obviously being used at least a portion of it is being used as a thoroughfare if we can use alleys as thoroughfares, it obviously takes some of the load off the adjacent streets and perhaps some of the parking off the adjacent streets.
You know, I'm just throwing that out to Council.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is the petitioner here?
Could you speak to this?
Could you speak to why you are making this request for the alley closure?
>> This is the part only for back of the building line.
That's all.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sir, would you mind putting your name on the record.
>> Patel.
This property belongs to my daughter-in-law.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you intend to physically close this alley?
Is that why you want it to be vacated?
>> No, no.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would your neighbors still have access to the alley?
>> Yes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is your intention -- could you explain why you want the vacating?
>> This is extending of the building a little bit, about five feet, six feet.
So for that purpose, the setback purpose.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair, as an alum of the variance review board for several years, I think that would be the more appropriate way to achieve a setback variance would be to ask the variance review board for a variance, not to take public property.
Right now, this is public property and it's public property being used, at least a certain portion of that alley is being used by the public.
And I don't know that I can support it based upon the information I've heard.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Cook, could you suggest to us why perhaps he went this route?
>> Normally when people come to the office they are given both options.
You lay out the time frame, difference between -- sometimes it's more beneficial to go to the vacating.
If that portion is not used by any of the property owners or if no significant utilities in the alley, if not paid, sometimes they opt to go through the vacating process versus the variance process.
And we do it all over the city when the alleys aren't being used.
It's just another option for a property owner to try -- not to circumvent a process but they do do it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: One more comment.
The other problem I have with this, we can ask him if he's, you know, going to keep his neighbors from using the alley and he could say no, but he could sell it tomorrow.
If they have legal title to half of that alley, sure, they can build a fence and do anything they want because they have legal title to that.
>> We can put language in the ordinance that prohibits anything from being built or constructed in the alley.
We do it all the time.
The easement will be preserved for utilities but we can prohibit them from fencing or putting anything in the alley to obstruct it.
So basically they gain ownership of it.
I mean, it's a risk on his part because he's letting the public use private property.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Council, more discussion on this?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close the public hearing.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We've already closed it.
Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, I appreciate Mr. Dingfelder's concerns.
However, I think that we can achieve what the property owner wants and still let all the surrounding neighbors achieve what they want which is to have access.
So I'd like to go ahead and move the ordinance with the language that he will not be allowed to construct anything within his portion of the vacated alley and that the easement for not only utility purposes but for public access be granted.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's been a motion and second.
Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we definitely asked the petitioner what is -- what his purpose was in doing this.
He said his purpose was to add structure on to his daughter's whatever it is, home or building to now come closer to the back door neighbors.
We have a city process for that, and it's called a variance as you well know and it's a variance board that looks at that.
And they are willing to look at that time for hours on end into the evening.
I think it's our duty to look at what is the public's interest in this.
And I don't know that we've heard any testimony to say what the public's interest is, except we've heard from members of the public who live, who own property adjacent who go up and down these alleys, this particular alley.
And I don't think it's in anybody's best interest, especially the public's, to give away some city land in this fashion and frankly, I'm not specifically targeting this particular property.
I've watched these vacations -- vacatings for a while and we're giving away city property.
Now, sometimes it makes sense when it's overgrown with weeds and it's not being used.
But we've had testimony here that this particular alley is being used.
And if you went into Hyde park and you started talking about vacating those alleys that are used daily, might be a different discussion.
So I can't support the motion in all deference to Mr. Harrison.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any more discussion by Council members?
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, no.
Two noes.
The motion passed.
>>CLERK: I need a clarification.
Mr. Cook, we have an ordinance --
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Item number 11, do we have a motion to open?
Motion by Ms. Alvarez.
Seconded by Ms. Miller.
All those in favor of opening the public hearing number 11 say aye.
[MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY]
Do we have someone to speak on this request for a preservation property tax exemption?
>> Del Acosta, manager historic preservation.
This is a request for an ad valorem tax exempt application --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me for one second.
Did we need to read the ordinance?
On the previous one.
>>CLERK: No, because he's putting language in it.
So it will have to go back to legal.
>> Del Acosta, manager historic preservation.
This is the final request for ad valorem tax exempt application at 840 South Dakota Avenue in the Hyde Park historic district.
The property owners are William and Mary Britain.
I saw them coming in.
Again, 840 South Dakota Avenue.
The ad valorem tax exempt program, I'll go through this real quickly because we have two new commissioners, is an incentive for historic preservation for historic properties whereby it exempts property from additional ad valorem taxes on the improved structure for ten years for improvements provided they meet the criteria of the secretary of interior standards.
It's a three-part process.
And the Britains have been through all three parts.
Part one is qualification.
The property has to be a contributing structure and it is contributing structure and it has to be in a locally designated historic district or locally landmarked structure.
That was determined by the A.R.C.
Part two, statement of intent of what they were going to do.
This is -- this needed to be in compliance with the United States Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and it included both the interior and the exterior.
They went before the A.R.C. before construction began.
And we're approved for their part one to initiate construction.
If we can get on the elmo right now, this is a structure at 840 South Dakota.
This was a structure prior to the work beginning.
They did an addition to the rear.
This is after the work.
This is what the A.R.C. review.
They were still doing some work over here.
This was the original where the house originally stopped.
They did this addition and did some improvements over here.
This was the rear of the structure prior to work being initiated.
And this is photograph -- the only thing that needs to be done here is painting.
They have done substantial improvements on the project.
The improvements met the criteria established by the department of state, the Florida department of state.
And the ad valorem tax exempt program is the only time the A.R.C. looks at the interiors.
So it included the interior and exterior.
Improvement by ordinance need to exceed $10,000 in value.
Obviously they have done that.
The six review criteria that the board needs to satisfy, William and Mary Britain have submitted a partially executed historic preservation property tax exemption covenant which requires the owner to maintain the historic characteristics of the property and qualifying improvements for a period of ten years.
They have executed their portion after City Council acts on it, then we can finalize it, it will go to the Legal Department and then it will be recorded.
The county will go through the -- through the same process also.
They are getting exemption on the city and county portion of the ad valorem on the improvements to the property.
I've gone through it very quickly if you've got any questions.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Acosta.
I think that's important for us all to be familiar with.
It really is a financial incentive for people to bring their properties back to the historic standards which is a gift to the neighborhoods.
Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Acosta, are they obligated to keep this property for the ten years?
>> No, they can sell it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: They can sell it.
Does that exemption follow them?
>> The exemption goes with the property and the covenants does too.
Whoever they sell it would would have to satisfy the requirements of the covenants on the interior and exterior.
It goes with the property.
That's a tremendous incentive.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excellent.
Any other question members by council members?
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's fantastic.
Very, very nice.
>> You'll see me about once a month on these because we have a lot of them.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there a motion to close?
Moved by Ms. Alvarez.
Seconded by Mr. Dingfelder.
All those in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Mr. Dingfelder, would you like to move this ordinance?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Number 11.
Public hearing for historic preservation -- move an ordinance authorizing a historic preservation property tax exemption application relative to the restoration, renovation or rehabilitation of certain property owned by William and Mary Britain located at 840 South Dakota Avenue, Tampa, Florida, based on certain findings, providing for notice to the property appraiser of Hillsborough County, providing for severability, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's been a motion and second by Ms. Alvarez.
All those in favor, aye.
[MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY]
Thank you.
>> That was first reading.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Unfinished business.
We will now go to item "A."
It says report not received.
I received a copy of this.
Did other Council members?
This was from Henry Ennis.
There's been a motion and second to move and -- receive and file the memo.
[MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY]
Discussion on the memo?
Discussion on the topic?
Mr. Karl.
>> Thank you, Fred Karl.
I'm the City Attorney.
I'm here at the request of the Mayor to pass a few thoughts on to you, if I may.
The Mayor asked me to speak to you about this matter and urge you to give us a chance to get settled before you make this motion, make this move.
There are some complications that we see that might be best worked out over time.
First, we recognize that you have the absolute charter right to do what you propose to do, what this item suggests.
I am -- I'm not here to challenge it or discuss it.
If you want to go forward, you have the absolute legal right to do it.
No question.
But I think your goal in this, specifically for the legal aspect of it and there are similar goals for the financial, specifically speaking to the legal aspect, you need competent, prompt, courteous legal assistance.
I know that you want some continuity.
And I'm prepared to offer that to you on behalf of the Mayor's suggestion.
And Gina.
She sits with you and she has indicated a willingness to meet with you any time you are in session to provide you the continuity and I am prepared to offer you the full resources of the legal office to provide you the kind of objective legal advice that you need.
Beyond that, I can't speak.
Not to say we are not -- interested other than pure legal services and we are prepared to provide those.
The thought that I want to leave you with is that if you'll examine the charter, you'll see that there's some confusion about how this worked.
The charter says that you have the right to have a legal Council that reports directly to you, you appoint the person.
Yet that person becomes an assistant City Attorney, and I have the right to give that person certain assignments subject to the approval of the chair, which makes it kind of a hybrid situation.
Also requires appointments and involves cost.
I can tell you with a great deal of confidence that Gina has the talent that is beyond anything that you'll be able to hire.
She's been -- has years of legal service here.
And you'll have something less than the kind of quality service.
I don't want to embarrass her.
One thing I've learned in my few days at the City Attorney's office is that she is a jewel.
She knows the law.
She knows your procedures.
She can respond to your questions based on her institutional memory.
She is just a real jewel to work with.
And I have full confidence in her.
And we thought that we ought to be sure that you understand that we're not objecting to your doing it if you want to do it.
But the Mayor urges you to go slowly with it and to try -- to try out our system and see if it works.
If it doesn't work, then you can always change it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Karl.
Mr. Harrison, Ms. Ferlita and then Ms. Alvarez.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Karl, you are correct.
If we were going to go outside and hire our own City Council attorney, I would hire Ms. Grimes.
>> Have to arm wrestle you for that.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Then what would happen, she would become one of your Assistant City Attorneys.
The system is a good proposal that you all have.
We're all comfortable with Gina.
We recognize her legal ability and appreciate that.
I had the fortune of dealing with Gina when she was in private practice as well when she was the board attorney for the Tampa Palms community development district.
So I'm quite comfortable with this proposal and would be willing -- I don't think we need a motion, but I think it's a good idea.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Are you proposing that at this point?
You want us to think about what you're suggesting.
>> I'll make this in response to the notion on the agenda that I spoke with each of you about when I came back from my personal visit with you.
I know there's interest in having Council and in thinking about it, I thought through the process what -- to try to determine what you're looking for.
It seems to me we can fulfill that need unless there's something about the need that I don't understand.
>>ROSE FERLITA: My concern is, are you, for example, giving Gina as a suggestion -- well, all I want to know, should I go back and work out this arm so I can arm wrestle you for Gina if that's what we're talking about.
If you're making a suggestion and pointing it to Gina, I wholeheartedly agree.
If we're talking about another City Attorney that we don't have the experience with, not that anybody from in-house would be less objective or more subjective, but at the point that we start looking at new applicants or a new job description or person to fill that, then I would at that point disagree with you because I think if we brought somebody that has a separate law practice, that does not conflict with appearing here before us, then we would have to look at that too.
I would certainly agree with Mr. Harrison that if we are talking about specifics and your suggestion, either formally or informally, is Gina Grimes, I want to tell that you we have gotten fantastic, fantastic legal representation in the person of Gina Grimes.
If we're talking about it in terms of the process, then I'm a little bit more reluctant to say yes at the inception.
>> Well, perhaps been misunderstood so let me clarify.
I'm not suggesting that Gina be dedicated to you full time nap would be a terrible hole in my boat.
I couldn't function in this office at this juncture without her help.
So that wasn't what I was offering.
I was offering to assign her, with her consent and her willingness to sit with you and provide you personal continuity of service.
And she would still be the assistant City Attorney.
>>ROSE FERLITA: If that's what you're proposing, I think probably most of our colleagues will agree that our relationship with Gina has been tremendous.
Obviously if there's some downtime, I'm sure you as City Attorney will find something for her to do.
But we will as well try to find many things for her to do in her capacity as our attorney.
If that's what we're trying to structure and I know we need to fine tune it as we go --
>> Well, I was suggesting not that.
I'm afraid you still don't have a clear understanding.
I apologize for not saying it clearly.
We're suggesting that you not appoint your own legal help.
You look to the City Attorney's office to provide you with the legal help.
I'm saying to you in that regard, I will provide you with the help of Gina who has consented to do this.
She'll be in the same duty she performs now but she'll dedicate the time necessary to sit you with each time that you meet and to provide you with legal service that I think you need.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So then we're not talking about a City Council attorney.
We're talking about somebody that's going to help us at your direction, but we're still not addressing the issue of a City Council attorney.
>> That's correct.
Not involve any cost.
The cost is not a large factor, I suppose.
In the total scheme of things.
If you reach out to your own lawyer, you'll have to pay the salary.
>>ROSE FERLITA: But at the same time, sir, the city will still have to be absorbing the cost of her time with us.
So actually it's the same thing.
>> Well, we're going to -- get her regular work done in addition to your duties.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I don't want to monopolize the conversation.
I feel that we need somebody here and we all respect, obviously, Gina Grimes, unless we have a structure that says this is our City Council attorney, whether that position be a part-time or a full time, whatever the workload demands, I still don't think that we are addressing at least my concern.
I don't know how the rest of the colleagues feel.
Because what we're doing now, we're just having an attorney nil and give us some advice, but we don't have a City Attorney, be it Gina Grimes.
I don't care about the person, I care about the concept.
With no disrespect, Gina.
>> If I can make a comment.
Under the charter, if you hire such a person is not going to be able to give opinions that bind the city.
The City Attorney still gives the opinion of any policy issue.
The person would just be advising you with respect to procedure and to your routine activities, not be issuing opinions on behalf of the city.
It just seems to me unless there's something I'm missing, you get all the service you need under this arrangement.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
We got a memo from the former director of finance that said we don't have any money in the existing budget.
So we still have to go through September 30th with the same City Attorney that we have now if we wanted -- I'm perfectly satisfied with him appointing Mr. -- Mr. Karl appointing Gina to us, because she's been wonderful.
She knows her stuff backwards and forwards.
And I'm fairly -- I'm really comfortable with your appointment to her.
For her.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Other Council comments?
>>GWEN MILLER: I would like to thank Mr. Karl, too, for giving us the opportunity to have Gina.
Like everybody said, Gina has been excellent with the City Council.
She knows the ins and outs of City Council.
She knows all the problems and solutions we've had with City Council.
I'd be very pleased to have her work with us get outside turn, you have to -- he'd have to come in and learn our ins and outs everything about City Council.
Gina is right here.
She has that experience already.
I'm very pleased that the Mayor and you have recommended that we can use Gina.
And I would love to have her here.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any other Council comments?
I would like to say I was one of the people who proposed having a separate attorney for the time at which Council feels that we need a different interpretation, perhaps.
And I really look forward to working with Ms. Grimes, and I think that what we need to do is see how it goes into the future that Council feels that our legal issues are well spoken for.
I don't anticipate a problem at all.
I anticipate a very good working relationship and the excellent support we've received.
If there is in the future, I think that when Council holds its budget hearings, we should look at -- if this is something that financially perhaps we can't address now, we should look ahead to the budget hearings, see if we want to put money aside for these positions potentially in the future.
I don't know that we do, but I certainly think this satisfies our current concerns.
So unless there's any more discussion, Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll defer.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm sorry.
Maybe just clarification for me.
I've been on the Council four years and I've never experienced asking for outside opinions.
Can you clarify that for me?
You've been on the Council longer than I have?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If I may, I can speak specifically to certain interpretations of who could sit on certain boards, certain -- it was a very specific issue where if you did business before the city, you or any member of your firm did business before the city, you were precluded from sitting on any preservation board.
And I thought that was too stringent an interpretation because no other board in the state had that interpretation.
It was something that I wasn't comfortable with, and as a Council member, I didn't have any other access to interpretation other than the city staff.
And I felt that if we as Council were to have our own attorney, they could research it and perhaps come up with a different interpretation.
That was specifically the issue that gave me some discomfort that we had no alternate interpretation available to us.
The way that the slaw structured is a little difficult because even if we were to have our own attorney, it would still be in the staff with the City Attorney so it would really be the City Attorney's interpretation of the rules.
There's no structured mediation for it.
Mr. Harrison and Mr. Dingfelder.
Oh, Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is a tough one.
For one thing, when I'm done talking, I would like a comment from any of the Council folks who were here when the Council had their own attorney.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that's me.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it is you.
You get the award for longevity.
But I would like your opinion in regard to how that worked with Mr. Carr and his interaction with the City Attorney's office and positive -- pros and cons in regard to that because none of us were here.
But I want to assure Mr. Karl and I've already assured the Mayor that my comments have nothing to do with this particular administration or the past administration.
My comments have to do more with the philosophical issue.
And one of the concerns I have has to do with the attorney Gina or anybody holes is sitting here in this seat possibly answering to two masters.
And Mr. Karl, as you know, having been a Florida Supreme Court justice and better versed on ethical issues for lawyers than I'll ever be, I have great concern about -- it's not ethics, per say, but our ethical standard says as lawyers, we're only supposed to answer to one master, one client at a time.
And I've expressed my concern to the Mayor, and actually even to the past Mayor, to Mayor Greco, about this issue.
You know, I believe city government is set up as a checks and balances and that's one of the reasons that we're here as a checks and balances.
Administration is administration.
It's a strong Mayor form of government.
None of us deny that.
We're all good with that.
But at the same time, the city looks to us as sort of a checks and balances.
And as an autonomous and independent structure and body.
With that said, 99% of the time we're probably all in agreement and everything else.
But that one or two percent of the time -- and I did see it come up in the last four to eight years when Mr. Carr was no longer here, there were a few times when I'm thinking to myself, Council seems to have a little divergent discussion going on here from what the administration direction was and perhaps could use the help of some independent Council.
Anyway, with all that said, Ms. Alvarez brings up a good point, we don't have money in the 2002-2003 budget to address this.
And I've heard at least three or four of you say that you don't really see anything broken and that you're okay with the way it is.
So perhaps as some level of compromise so we might be able to continue the discussion down the road, if we can address it in the budget cycle and perhaps leave a contingency there for the possibility that if at some point in time, we opt to be more aggressive to pursue this at least we'll have that option in the budgeting process.
I'm strictly speaking to the Council attorney position.
As to the Council budget position, I think we'll have another discussion next.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Alvarez -- asks me, Ms. Miller, could you address Mr. Dingfelder's question about what it was like functioning with a City Council attorney and after.
>>GWEN MILLER: There were some things -- toad confer with the city attorneys to find out if we could do them.
Some things on his own he was able to confer with us.
But then if he wasn't familiar with what was in the city, he still had to confer with the City Attorney to find out if we could do it or not do it.
This is a catch one and catch two.
If we had one that would be good, but we don't have the money.
If we don't -- Ms. Grimes is here for items can he not solve on his own.
I think we can wait and see how this going to work and how Ms. Grimes works with us.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It really is a question of changing the charter.
I mean, we're going to have to change the charter if we're going to be able to hire our own attorney who would be able to give us advice that is independent from the City Attorney's office.
Now, in theory that may be a good idea.
That discussion ought to be had for a later day.
I think it would be a waste of money in the budget process to put aside money for our own attorney under the current system because that attorney answers to Mr. Karl.
There is no ability to get a second opinion.
His opinion is the only one that binds any of us.
And if we were to take an opinion that varied from the City Attorney's opinion and follow that course of action, we place ourselves in jeopardy by doing that.
So the way the system works is, the buck stops with Mr. Karl, and if we were to hire our own person and he didn't like that person, he may fire that person.
So it would be a difficult and a messy thing.
I think, though, that there may be some merit to looking at the charter in this provision.
I think it's time for us to review the charter from head to tow.
-- head to toe.
There are some other things we ought to be looking at in the charter as well.
So I'm comfortable with leaving it as is.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
Actually, Mr. Harrison, I intend to set up a charter review commission because we haven't had one in 18 years.
In fact, we have discussed it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Harrison, in the past, no offense to you, I can't remember agreeing with you so many times as I have today and I agree with you in terms of the charter.
It's a useless exercise and I don't know if it's cost justifiable to do that.
Mr. Karl, in reference to Gina's interaction with us, if we go with this at least till we look at budget amendments and revisions of charter, et cetera, et cetera, as we go forward, just so I understand what usefulness that relationship will have, will this be pretty much her first role so that we have some continuity there as opposed to you pulling her off on some of the issues and then we have another attorney sitting here next Thursday and another City Attorney sitting here next Thursday.
I would like to be comfortable that if, in fact, this is the road that we're going to both agree on, that Gina -- I mean, barring some emergencies, I know.
But as a rule, will she be here?
>> Let me answer it this way and specifically as I can.
Her primary responsibility is to be the deputy City Attorney.
She has a great deal of administrative control over the other lawyers and she schedules things and has the power.
She has the decision-making power with respect to administrative matters in our office.
And she acts in my absence.
And that's what her primary duty is.
I'm willing to say to her that she should come here and be with you at every meeting where it's physically possible.
There may be times because of illness or because of some major catastrophe she can't be here in which case we'll have to offer you some other alternative.
But she has agreed that she'll give this high priority -- highest priority in her performance of her duties.
And I give you one other piece of comfort, if I can.
That is, she will be instructed and I think this may get to your other issue, that she is to do an objective job.
Not going to be any strings on her to do a political decision or to tilt her opinions in any way.
I'll give that in any form you want.
She already has that authority from me and I'll assure you for comfort sake that she will be objective in her opinions.
And I also want to say that in my experiences there have been times when the legislative and the executive have conflict.
There may come a time when you're at odds with the Mayor on a major portion.
And in that instance, I'll step up and recommend that you have your own council for that issue.
That will give you the safeguard.
If we get in the critical position where you just can't reconcile the differences or there's some question about her opinion being objective, I'll see that you get your own counsel for that if that's acceptable to you.
I think you're entitled to all these safeguards and I'll be glad to give them.
But to get back to your question, Ms. Ferlita, I can't guarantee that you'll -- she'll give full time because she's too valuable in the City Attorney's office.
Not just to me, but the city.
She plays a role in the operation of the city that is complex and far-reaching.
And I hope you appreciate that it takes a special person to be able to do all that.
And -- her willingness to do this job for are you speaks well of her and I'm enthusiastically in support of it.
As you go through the budget process, if this issue resurfaces, we'll be glad to discuss it with you at that time.
I'm just asking you for fair consideration of this arrangement and to see how it works.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Karl.
Then Ms. Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: One closing comment.
Therein may lie our problem but we'll have to see how that goes.
And I certainly agree with you in terms of the standards that Ms. Grimes -- and I hate to be complimenting her so much face to face -- in terms of her standards, I have seen her many times in a situation where somebody else might bow to subjective suggestions.
And I think she's probably one of the most ethical persons I've ever met.
We'll have to see if her workload as Chief Assistant versus here takes her away from us too much.
Then we'll have to review it further.
So I think temporarily it's a fix and we'll just have to see how that sets with you and with the Council.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Ms. Ferlita.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I do think it's an excellent idea, Mr. Karl, that you identify in advance of any issues arrive in conflict with Council, whatever we want to call it, to be on call.
Obviously we wouldn't want the issue to come up and then have to look for one.
So I think that's as reasonable compromise and an effective one on those rare situations where we might need it.
I do want to point out in response to Mr. Harrison, that taking a look at the charter very quickly, just to clarify exactly what it says about the Council attorney's role -- and I won't read the whole thing, but it says: Said assistant City Attorney shall serve in an advisory capacity City Council.
Shall perform only such duties technical nature including drafting of ordinances, legal research and providing advisory opinions as requested by Council through its Chairman.
But then it does go on -- and I think this is what Mr. Karl and his staff are referencing that said City Attorney shall not file suit on behalf of the city.
No action or opinion of said assistant City Attorney shall be construed to be the official legal position of the city.
The City Attorney only has that role.
So I don't know -- I guess I differ a little bit, Mr. Harrison.
I think that there could be a role for this Council attorney to provide us independent advisory opinions as the charter points out.
The way it is today.
And I also agree with that you much of the charter needs revisiting.
So I just wanted to point that out.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
Any further conversation?
I want to compliment you, Mr. Karl and Ms. Grimes, on the quality of the response and support that we've received and I look forward to it going swimmingly well into the future.
Thank you.
Thank you for your work.
Thank you for sitting with us.
We're jealously guarding you.
That's what it really is, Ms. Grimes.
We want you all to ourselves.
Thank you.
Do we want to have the conversation about the budget analyst now?
>> May I make a remark.
The Mayor asked me to speak to you about both of those items.
I'm less informed about the other, the financial aspect of it.
So I say just yesterday she appointed her financial person.
I don't know whether you -- we propose you get acquainted with her and understand her modus operandi and what services she can offer you budget-wise.
She may have a whole different approach than you're used to, one that would be more satisfactory to you.
Again, it's your prerogative.
It's the Mayor's preference that you go slowly on this one as well.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Actually, Mr. Karl, I believe -- is that considered department head position so it will come to Council for a formal approval by Council, but I think that there would be value to our meeting with her and discussing with her how she intends to format things.
Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes, I was going to suggest -- I don't see the clear bright line with this as I do with the Council attorney.
And I for one would greatly appreciate help when it comes to budget time, you know, to guide us through some of those ins and outs.
Because we seem to be totally at the mercy of Jim Stefan and Henry Ennis on any issue.
They come in, they say, sorry, there's no money.
They say, well, okay.
But if someone were to look at that time in a different fashion, you know, then maybe there are ways.
That gets down -- I mean, that's more of a -- an idealological change.
It's almost a change that has to come from the new administration.
And it's going to be how are they going to tailor the budget process?
Is there going to be, you know, more of a role for us?
So this is an open item, I guess.
And we really ought to continue --
>> To that point, if I may.
As you perhaps know, the Mayor has a good bit of experience on the legislative bench.
She served eight years on the county commission and dealt with budgets from top to bottom and she was somewhat of an expert when she was there.
She always did her homework and knows what problems you confront when you deal with a budget served up by the administration.
I can testify.
She knew what she was talking about.
She thoroughly analyzed it.
Also I think it's fair to say that the Mayor wants a proper relationship with this body.
She doesn't want to dominate you.
She doesn't want -- she wants to recognize you with all your authority and your proper placement in the total scheme of things.
She doesn't want to make your life any more difficult than it already is.
So she will, I'm sure, instruct Bonnie wise, the new financial person, to work you with and provide you with the technical expertise and service that you require.
And I can't answer your question with specificity, but I think the position will require it coming before you.
Whether she does or not, I'll recommend to the Mayor that she come before you, if you'll receive her, and discuss it with her either individually or collectively the role that she'll play and how she plans to approach the development of the budget.
There's a way to make you part of the developmental process if you're willing to participate.
And I'm sure she would be interested in talking to you about that.
If she can't satisfy you, you can get your own person.
Do you need straight technical advice available to you on demand.
And you need somebody who understands the budget to be close enough to you to give you proper advice.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
Ms. Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Karl, in terms of your comment about dominating this board, you've been here this morning, so I think you know that would be a heavy challenge for anybody.
And I don't think that's the Mayor's intent.
So I agree with you.
I think we will get a new perspective from the new financial person.
So I think that we should just delay this and talk further after we've individually met with her and go forward with the new changes that we will see.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The way that Council has operated in the past, primarily, was responsive to a budget submitted to us.
And I think early engagement with a common thought process on our priorities as city government would be excellent.
And perhaps the most appropriate format for that might be a month from now perhaps if Mr. White is the chair of the Finance Committee, we convene a special meeting one morning or we could do it either in the context of our Council meetings or we could do it as a special Finance Committee meeting.
I think probably all the members of Council would be interested in attending.
In a month, Ms. White -- I mean, Ms. Wise would have an opportunity to sort of think of how she's structuring her department and begin embarking on the budget process.
I think an early on conversation like that with Council would be really valuable.
And then it perhaps would be continued on a regular basis.
>>ROSE FERLITA: In a motion, I suggest that we continue this pending introductions to our new financial officer and then determine what we need in terms of a budget analyst.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Was there a second to the motion?
Second by Mr. White.
Mr. Ding felder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just to further Mr. Harrison's comments, which I agree with, I think what I hope Council can consider again in this upcoming budget cycle in the summer is giving us -- giving ourselves enough latitude that if we decide to add the budget position and/or the part time Council attorney position that we might have that flexibility as a contingent item in the budget.
And I don't know much about the budget.
I never have claimed to.
I look forward to learning more about how they work.
But if there's some process for giving us that kind of latitude and flexibility just so on the outside chance that something should change and we opt to take one of those routes that we have that flexibility.
I don't even know that that's required as a motion at this point because I think we'll just address it when we go into budget.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What we do as we go into budget, we traditionally have reviewed each department's submittals.
We are a department.
We develop and craft our own budget, so that could be part of what we include.
And I intend as Chairman to have a meeting specifically about our own needs, including equipment needs as well as staff and other.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
We look forward to working with Ms. Wise as she comes on board.
Did we vote on that motion?
There's been a motion by Ms. Ferlita.
Seconded by Mr. White.
To put this on our pending calendar pending the introduction of Ms. Wise.
Any more discussion?
All those in favor, aye.
[MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY]
Thank you.
Moving along unfinished business.
Item 2 has been removed.
Item "C," we've received a response.
Is there any discussion on item "C"?
Members of the audience who would like to speak on item "C," which is a question about whether Council has the ability to issue a moratorium on duplexes in the area of north Nebraska and Fowler.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: While they are walking up, have you all had a chance to see this memorandum?
Can we go back to item "B" and can we have a motion to move that discussion -- remove it from the agenda and refer to the pending calendar.
I thought we did too.
There's been a motion by Ms. Alvarez.
Seconded by Mr. Harrison.
All those in favor, aye.
It passed unanimously.
Thank you.
Okay.
We're on item "C" now.
>> Yes, good afternoon, Council members.
I'm still Cindy Tillman, Lantana Avenue.
I would like to have you receive and file these papers on my last presentation, and I'm -- am I on the clock now?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, you are.
>> Well, just for a second, could you stop it, because I submitted paperwork two weeks ago that has not been found by your clerk's office.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
So we'll receive and file this information.
>> They do not include the original signatures that were lost.
I had approximately 50 to 70 signatures in support of this moratorium.
By homeowners.
And with that missing and the section rules that I submitted so you could see the effects the landlords do have criteria to ask these people to leave with this bad behavior.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me.
What we're going to do now is receive and file and then we'll start the clock.
Motion to receive and file by Mr. Harrison.
Seconded by Ms. Alvarez.
All those in favor, aye.
[MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY]
You're back on the clock.
>> Okay.
Thank you so much for that.
So I'm hoping that that will count even though I am without the signature and you are without the signatures.
I just gave you maps again that were also missing of the location I'm discussing.
And actually, the letter speaks directly to the problem as short a synopsis as I could make it.
These duplexes were built around a single-family community.
Originally the owners occupied one half, renting out the other.
They were supposed to stay that way.
They have not.
They've moved out.
And because when the different components of the housing projects closed, a lot of those folks came looking in our neighborhood for lower income.
The landlords apparently reduced the rent, and when they did that, they sacrificed the quality and integrity of their buildings.
And the behavior that they are accepting and forcing us to accept is terrible such as what we talked about earlier with the children.
There are many times in two-bedroom apartments, six to eight kids.
This is no exaggeration, the average is four to six kids with two adults or one adult.
And two bedroom.
And the cars, they have the friends come over selling the drugs.
It becomes a prostitution hangout.
This is not a good environment for children.
That is the top of the complaint.
These children are victimized from the time they are walking and then when you have some in grade school and they are going past these drug sellers and they've got all this money, they use them as mules.
That's what they call them.
They get them to run around with this dope so if they get caught, they're not getting in much trouble.
The older people, of course, would be going to jail.
So the children are being victimized, and that's the plea from this effort.
These duplex owners have no couth.
They have no values.
And they certainly don't respect any of ours.
Now, most of these duplexes are like a revolving door.
Some stay vacant for up to a year or so.
We're asking a moratorium for -- and existing ones vacant for six months or longer, to please let's convert that to single-family.
We have a mixture of new homes coming in where there's not so many duplexes.
The new owners are occupied in the homes and they are currently complaining as this gentleman just told you, he's a new homeowner and he's across the street from something he didn't expect.
These people moved in and they are behaving like animals.
I mean, where do we draw the line of how much more we have to take before we also have to sell our houses after 35 years for pennies on the dollar and go running somewhere else and try to make in the middle of our life, try to make a new home.
It's very, very tragic.
This is not something that's going to go away.
We just can't look the other way.
And we need some quality of life.
We absolutely have to have it.
Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
Next.
>> Good morning, Council.
I'm Shirley -- I'm Shirley martin.
I live at 920 east wilma street.
And I'm in grid 20.
I, too, have complaints about the children, the duplexes, the drug dealers, the prostitutes and a bar in our area which when I moved there 21 years ago, it was a nice neighborhood.
The duplexes moved in.
They started renting out which is an overturn all the time of people.
Drug dealing on the streets.
Drinking in the streets.
Trash.
And a lot of these duplexes may be month, two months, when they leave the trash is parked in front of their house.
The drinking is being taken out, bottles on the street, in the parking lot.
And all -- drug dealing.
But since the duplexes, I've noticed my property, all the properties are going down.
And I've been trying to get people in together to build their houses up, lighting to make -- take over their plan.
But the duplexes and some people buy homes and they just do not fix it up.
And us that's left like Cindy just said, we either have to sell or put up with it.
And if there's anything you could do about that, I would really appreciate it.
I think some of these landlords, absent landlords need -- has to be some kind of a rule that they have to follow like section 8 because they are not.
They get these places and they don't even live here.
So their property is run down.
And occupied by unacceptable people.
So anything, I'd appreciate anything that you could do to help me in that way.
Thank you very much.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for coming down.
Next.
>> Is it still morning?
My name is Karl.
I live 10 -- 1005 wilma Street.
Basically my belief is that duplexes are not a good thing for this neighborhood simply for the fact that -- adding more duplexes is no good for the neighborhood simply because of the fact that people who rent don't care the same as people who own the property.
People that rent actually are neat and taking care of their surroundings.
They are not going to try to make improvements or make it clean.
Their way of thinking, why am I put time and effort and money into something that is not mine.
I am probably going to move out a year or so after this.
If more duplexes are built, that's basically the type of idealology that will grow across that neighborhood and that's going to go down.
And that's a shame that that neighborhood will go down because that's probably a window into Tampa.
If you take into consideration that Busch Gardens is nearby, that Busch Boulevard is an entranceway to Busch Gardens.
If I'm not mistaken, Busch Gardens is a national attraction, if not international attraction.
People coming through the city see drug dealing, prostitution, breaking bottles on the street, they are going to get a bad impression from Tampa.
I don't want that impression being taken of my city.
That's the way I see it.
Another big problem right now, it's the lighting.
There are some areas that are pitch black.
You can't even see who is coming until they get four or five feet from you.
I believe that's very dangerous taking into consideration all the crime situations that have been happening.
Also, to reinstate my fact about how people that represent believe, have heard statement from people that do take care of their areas and they say that.
I'm not going to take the time to pick up garbage.
People pass by -- I'm not going to take care of the lawn, not going to put grass because it's not my property.
I'll probably ask the owner but the owner will turn back and say, maybe tomorrow, maybe next month or maybe I won't do it at all.
I don't have money for it.
The rent is too low.
So we need to work something out here.
This neighborhood, it's at a level that I told you before, it could go to a nice neighborhood and probably be a showcase for Tampa or just be slumps.
So thank you.