Hey, Hey. Miranda Manusco >> here. >> Herac >> here. >> Young >> here. >> Vieiera Carlson and Clintennon >> here. >> We have a physical quum. >> Thank you. We are going to start with the consent agenda. Councilman Vieira is still is not with us. Councilman Randa is absent today. So, Guido Manoscalo, you're the alternative. Would you please [clears throat] move items five through 18? >> Public safety committee. So, I move items 5 through 18. >> We have a motion from Council Manalo, a second for Councilwoman Herk. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. The eyes have it. Councilwoman Young, can you move items 19 through 31 except for 24 and 28? I move items 19 through 31 except uh 24 and 28. >> Second. >> We have a motion from Councilwoman Young, a second from Councilman Maskcalo. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. The eyes have it unanimously. Thank you very much. >> Uh let's see. Infrastructure committee. Oh. Um actually u so I had pulled item 36 and I have had all of my questions answered. I'm still think that $800,000 is a lot of money to spend on this, but um I am told we are going to have a great plan. So, >> I move items 32 through 36. >> Thank you. We have a motion from council. Thank you, council um Councilman Vieira and Councilman [clears throat] Carlson has joined us. We have a motion from Councilman Manusc. A second from Councilman Vieira. All those in favor say I. >> I opposed. The eyes have it. Councilman Vieira, Councilman Miranda is absent. Could you please move items 37 through 39? Nope. Nope. Nope. 39 is pulled. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. 37 through 38. >> 38 through. >> No. >> 37 38. >> I'm sorry. >> Thank you. We have a motion from Councilman Vieira, second from Councilman Escal. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. Eyes have it. Councilman Carlson, could you move items 40 through 51? >> We have a motion from Councilman Carlson, a second from Councilman Escal. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Eyes have it unanimously. Thank you very [clears throat] much. Okay. >> Um I move items 52 and 53. >> Second. >> We have a motion from Councilwoman Herk, a second from Councilman Masko. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Eyes have it. Can I get a motion to set the public hearings? >> We have >> We have a motion from Councilman Maskc to set public hearings for items 54, 55, and 56. A second from Councilwoman Herk. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. The eyes have it. Can I get a motion to open the 11:00 public hearings, please? We have a motion from Councilman Escal, a second from >> Councilman Ver. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. The eyes have it. The 11:00 public hearings are opened. >> Okay, [clears throat] let's go with item number 57. Mr. Angram. >> Hi, this will be my presentation. Quinn Steel with the planning commission staff. Um, item number 57 is the update to the capital improvement section schedule projects in the Tampa comprehensive plan. This replaces the fiscal year 2025 through fiscal year 2029 capital improvement schedule of projects with the updated fiscal year 2026 through fiscal year 2030 schedule. The city council approved this amendment upon first reading on October 30th and it's back before you today for second reading consideration. [snorts] And that concludes my presentation. >> Thank you. Does council have any questions? Hearing none. >> Mr. Eng, did you want to speak on this issue? >> Your face keep popping up really wide screen on my screen. Okay, there we go. Is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak to item 57? Hearing none. Can I get a motion to close? We have a motion from Councilman Maskcal, second from Councilwoman Herk. All those in favor say I. >> I. Oppose. Eyes have it. >> Uh, Councilman Manaskcalo, would you please read this one? >> Yes. >> I have an [clears throat] ordinance being presented for second reading and adoption. An ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan capital improvement project program and capital improvement section schedule of projects by replacing the fiscal year 2025 through fiscal year 2029 capital improvement section schedule of projects with the fiscal year 2026 through fiscal year 2030 capital improvement section schedule of projects providing for repeal of all ordinances and conflict providing for severability providing an effective date. >> Thank you. We have a motion from council mano a second from >> Councilman Vieiraa please record your vote. Motion carried unanimously with Miranda being absent. >> Thank you. Item number 58 staff steel again, planning commission staff. Item number 58 is file number TACPA2509. This is a comprehensive plan map amendment to change the future land use designation for the property located at 2602 East 7th Avenue and the associated parcels from light industrial and general mixeduse 24, urban mixed use 60 and community commercial 35. The city council approved this amendment upon first reading on October 30th and it's back before you today for second reading consideration. And that concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Uh, does council have any questions? Hearing none. Is there in the public that wishes to speak to item 58? >> Hearing none. Can I get a motion to close? >> We have a motion closed. Councilomano, a second from >> Councilman Vieira, please record your vote. >> Oh, I got to read it first. Councilwoman Herk, would you please read this? Thank you. >> We're going backwards. >> Yeah, that's me. >> Just changing things up. >> Ordinance being presented for second reading and adoption. An ordinance amending the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. Future land use element, future land use map for the property located at 1703 North 24th Street, 1701 North 25th Street, 2602 East 7th Avenue, 2623 East 8th Avenue, 2622 East 7th Avenue, 2624 East 7th Avenue, 2707 East 7th Avenue, 2706 East 7th Avenue, 2615 [clears throat] East 7th Avenue, venue. 2703 East 7th Avenue 2707 East 7th Avenue 2705 East 7th Avenue 2709 East 7th Avenue 2805 East 7th Avenue 2805 East 7th Avenue unit 1/2 2901 East 7th Avenue and 2915 East 7th Avenue from Lightnixeduse 24 GMU 24 to urban mixed use 60U60 and community commercial 35 CC35 providing for a repeal of all ordinances in conflict providing for severability providing an effective date. >> Second. >> Thank you. I have a motion from Councilwoman Herzek, a second from Councilman Escal. Please record your vote. >> Motion carried unanimously with Miranda being absent. >> Thank you. Okay. So, we are now going to do quasi judicial, which means that everybody has to be sworn in. If you are here to speak on items 59 or 60, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in. >> Please raise your right hand. >> Yes. >> Okay. Item 61. There was an issue with uh how it was between first and second reading. They were supposed to provide a a plan amendment was not submitted. So we need to continue this item. Can >> it cannot be continued till you open number 61. >> Did you want to open the 11:00? >> We already did. >> We already did. >> I heard 59 and 60. >> No. No. We opened them all. >> No, we No, we already opened all the 11 o'clock public hearings. >> No, 11:00 >> 11. >> They were all 11 because start to 11. >> Shush you. Shush you. So can I um so we need to continue item 61 I believe >> I believe it was December what did we decide on that one? Do you remember? >> Is there is there staff present? Is staff present for that one? >> Yes. Good afternoon uh council and chairman. Uh this is Leo Dear Leven from development coordination. >> Yes. So the the applicant and uh and staff have have agreed to December 4th for the second reading. >> May I understand is is this the case where Well, first of all, we have >> I have to abain from this. >> Okay. >> My form let me file my form. >> Okay. We we have a we have a motion to to to submit form council mano a second for council. >> He has to state the reason. Oh, the reason is because the petitioner here is my uh is the landlord of my family's business. Different building, different side of town, but same landlord. >> So, we have a motion council, second from council me. All those in favor say I. I oppose. Eyes have it. Councilman Masko, we abstain from this vote. >> And Mr. Chairman, if we can for the record have the reason discussed and I see the applicant's representative here for the purpose of this continuence. Susan Johnson >> Johnson legal department. I think Mr. Bartleen can confirm though as you know council there's often revisions to be made between first and second reading to the site plan and so all the required revisions were not made um and timely submitted. So that's >> I think that's sufficient. Would you say Mr. Shelley? >> Yes. >> Okay. Very good. Okay. So can I get a motion to continue item 61 of December 4th? We have a motion from Councilwoman Herk. A second from Councilman Vieira. All those in favor say I. >> I opposed. Eyes have it. Clerk. >> Motion carried [clears throat] unanimously with Carlson being absent at vote and Miranda being absent. >> And what was the Wait, it was a continuence, was it not? >> Yes. Continuence to December 4th, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. and city council chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd floor, Tampa, Florida 33602. >> Thank you. and me. >> Yeah. >> And Manusc abstaining. >> Okay. So, we're going to move to 59. You'll see that on the record I was absent. I was actually in the chamber. I w I watched all of this. So, I I'm prepared to vote FYI on item number 59. 59. Staff. >> Hello again, uh, council and chairman. Leo Barard Lab Development Coordination. Item number 59 is AB22515 for the property located at 2905 North 50th Street. The request is for alcoholic beverage sales, restaurant classification for beer, wine, and liquor consumption on premises only. Site plan modifications were required to be made between first and second readings. Those changes have been made. The plans have been certified and a copy has been provided to the clerk and I'm available for any questions. >> Council have any questions? Hearing none. Applicant? None. Is anybody in the room wish to speak to item number 59? >> He's online. Okay. applicant. Do you have anything to add to the uh to the item? >> Good afternoon. No, I'm here to respond to any questions you may have. >> Thank you. Does council have any questions of the applicant? Hearing none. Is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak to item 59? 59. Hearing none. Can I get a motion to close? >> We have a motion to close. Councilomano, a second from Councilman Vier. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. Eyes have it. Councilwoman Young, would you please read item 59? >> Yes. Item 59 file item 59 file number AB2-25-15 ordinance being presented for second reading and adoption an ordinance approving a special use permit SU-2 for alcohol beverage sales restaurant consumption on premises only and making lawful the sale of beverages regardless of alcoholic content beer wine and liquor on that certain lot plot or tract of land located at 2905 North 50th Street Tampa of Florida as more particularly described in section two providing that all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict are repealed providing an effective date. >> Thank you. We have a motion from Councilwoman Young, a second from Councilman Maniscalo. Please record your vote. >> Motion carried unanimously with Carlson being absent at vote and Miranda being absent. >> Thank you. Item number 60. >> Thank you. Uh, your microphone's not on. >> Sorry about that. Leo dear lab development coordination. Item number 60 is AB22520 for the property located at 340 East Davis Boulevard. The request for alcoholic beverage sales small venue classification beer and wine for consumption on premises only. Site plan modifications were required to be made between first and second readings. Those changes have been made. The plans have been certified and a copy has been provided to the clerk. I am available for any questions. >> Does council have any questions? >> No. Is there an applicant? >> Alex Shaylor, 400 North Ashley Drive. Um, I have nothing further to add. All of our information was covered at first reading. Um, but I'm sure I'll speak to you all in just a few minutes. Thanks. >> Thank you very much. Okay. Um, is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak to item 60? Okay. If there's multiple people, if you would line up against the wall, we'll call you up one at a time. Start with your name, and each individual will have three minutes. Thank you. Second Miss Zombman has a speaker waiver forum. Let me just see. >> One, two, three, four, five. Get those out. If your name is called, please acknowledge. Can you get those? >> Oh. Oh my goodness. >> [clears throat] >> Yeah. Do you have one for Bill? >> Okay. Okay, Miss Summerman, start with your name. >> Let me call some names. >> Murray. >> Anna Murray. Thank you. >> Janice Davis, thank you. Um, Amy Elmore, thank you. Paula Meckley, thank you. Sandy Sanchez, thank you. Caroline Bennett, thank you. And Stephanie Pointer, uh, seven names, uh, plus three, a total of 10 minutes, please. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. Start with your name. You have 10 minutes. >> Okay. >> Is this on? >> Yes. Well, CTV, can you uh We're seeing it. There you go. >> Can you make it fit on the screen, please? >> Yes. Yes, you have you have the the wheel if you want to see the whole thing. Start the time. >> Okay. May I start? >> Yes. >> Debbie Zimmerman, 192 Corsica Street. I have been sworn. Let's start out by talking about the art of the steel. I refer to the Miriam Webster definition of steal as a transitive verb. One meaning is to take away by force or by unjust, unfair or dishonest means. Example, they are stealing our liberty. As a noun, it may mean a bargain. Example, it's a steal at that price. If you approve this request, you will be stealing the rights of res residents are afforded via the clear language within the city's code. The flip side is the applicant will be getting rights they are not entitled to granting them a bargain. As I speak to you today, I am speaking as a Davis Island resident who has served on the board of Davis Island Civic Association aka Dika for over 15 years, many of which were in the capacity of zoning chair or vice chair. For close to two decades, Dika has continually requested nothing more than that the decisions follow the code. Land use decisions are not a popularity contest, but ones that should be based on the clear requirements outlined within the code and the city of Tampa comprehensive plan. Dika's position may not have been fully understood within the first reading. Specifically, Dika voted to oppose this request and with their within their correspondence, they addressed distance separation waiver creates neighborhood intrusion. Two, potential for noise and extended late night activity. and three, precedent and long-term planning implications. Sorry. And there's the I put that de letter in your package. You have heard a lot of testimony at the first reading. What you need to do now before making any decision is to review the record and determine what information constitutes confident substantial evidence. While there were a lot of opinions and speculation, I am particularly concerned that the testimony of Scott Defrates, a resident [snorts] within the notice area who is also a resident, a registered nurse, was not given due consideration. Mr. Defrades gave direct testimony regarding the potential adverse health pack impacts if this item is approved. As the applicant failed to provide any competent substantial evidence regarding the health or safety implications, it's only reasonable to conclude that they failed to meet this burden as required pursuant to section 27129A-1. Keep in mind, per the site plan, this request is for a small restaurant plus or minus 1,743 square ft with a proposed occupancy class group A with less than 50 occupants, Florida building code 303.11. Now returning to the code and the proposed ordinances within section 27126. The intent is that special use permits have safeguards as reasonably necessary for the protection of public interest generally and of adjacent properties, the neighborhood and the city as a whole. Within section 27-127, it is intended that S2 special use permits be required where specific uses or occupancies involve matters of citywide or areawide importance. The language of 27127 is addressed within the first whereas of the proposed ordinance. It's right here which states requests for certain specified uses and occupancies involving matters deemed to be of citywide or area importance must be submitted to the city council for consideration and approval as a special use permit. as two. I did a pretty thorough review of the record and could not find a single comment or reference establishing that this request met the criteria of being of citywide or areawide importance. To the contrary, I did find testimony from a council member saying that this request was very very modest as more fully documented within tab four of the binder I provided. Absent the finding of arewide or citywide importance, it would seem the requirements of the code and the whereas contained in the proposed ordinance are unsubstantiated. Absent these findings, the record is unclear as to whether the requirements of the code or the whereas clause specifically stated in the proposed ordinance have actually been met. I respectfully request that these specific findings be introduced into the record prior to a final vote on this matter. Within tab six, you will find email correspondence entered into the record addressing the fact that the scope of the 109 parking space waiver for a restaurant with a maximum occupancy of 44 persons was not ac adequately addressed within the first reading. The applicant was well aware that a parking waiver would be required long before the meeting. A parking waiver of this significance is just too substantial to slip in as a minor revision between first and second reading. I have prepared a motion helper that may assist with making this decision. Please seriously consider these suggested motions and if you have any questions, please ask me to clarify. I have spent a tremendous amount of time reviewing this record and submitting correspondence that outlines the deficiencies with this application. I respectfully request denial of AB2-25-20. It is inconsistent with the land development code. Has no demonstrated citywide or areawide importance as required by the code and stated in the proposed ordinance. It contains no competent substantial evidence to justify the approval. It's incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and it steals the rights and protections residents are provided within the code. I believe the evidence I have submitted into the record substantiates the above comments. Again, if you have ask if you have questions, I will gladly walk you through the material. Additionally, if the applicant submits new information during rebuttal, I respectfully request that I have the opportunity to address new comments or evidence. A final point of significant importance per 27129A is it is the responsibility of the applicant to present evidence in the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, models, plans and the like to support the approval of such permit. As the applicant failed to present such evidence, I again request denial of AB2520. Thank you so much for your consideration of these comments and you're I know uh all of you are reviewing the documents. So, um I appreciate your time. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next speaker. Hello again. My name is Pamela Tan Kulkar. I live at 614 Superior Avenue on Davis Islands. I've been on the Davis Island Civic Association board aka Dika twice. Once about over a decade ago and for the past three years. I am here to oppose AB2-25-20, the special use application for 340 East Davis Boulevard. When I was on the Dika board the first time, a special use request was given for the building that houses um Bank Ozk, which happens to be the northernmost building in Davis Island Business District. and Dika and the residents were successful in getting that alcohol request denied because it was the closest to the northern end of and next to residential areas and i.e. the 250 ft separation. 340 East Davis is happens to be the furthest south building in the Davis Island business district, putting it again closest to the residential areas, including where they're requesting to have alcohol be open, which is in their parking lot, which is right up to the street of where the residential area is. An ice cream parlor would be nice. A nice family place where kids could go and have ice cream and and me as well. I don't agree that there's any reason that they need to put alcohol in an ice cream parlor, especially being able to drink outside in what is now the parking lot because we know people who are drinking generally tend to get noisy and loud. because it is right next to the residential area. I request that you deny this alcohol request. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. >> Hi, my name is Rich Garnick. I've been a resident of Davis Island since 92. I came from Chicago. Um, so I know a little bit about crowding. I know a little bit about crime, too. I know a little bit about drinking. I used to work in an ER and I used to see a lot of PE people that had injuries because of alcohol abuse. I'm not saying that all people abuse alcohol, but there is that potential. So, I am strongly opposed against this. I find it outrageous that people here actually believe that Davis Islands can benefit from another place that serves alcohol. Davis Island has needs like maybe storm water drainage, maybe some better lighting, a lot of other things, but there is no need for another place to serve alcohol. I strongly oppose that. Uh it is just too close to to the people that live there. I mean, they're just like a few feet away from uh residents, and I find that outrageous that people really believe that we could benefit from another place that we can serve. When I heard that there was going to be a a ice cream shop, I thought that that was great. It's going to be wonderful. Finally, you know, I can get some ice cream, right? But no, I don't want to be next to a drunk, you know, with my grandkids and having to explain to my grandkids maybe why that person is acting that that way. You know, like we have Anchor Bar there. We have many places that you can get even packaged liquor on on this place that I thought was a paradise when I first moved moved down here. And to actually consider that we're we're turning into a Soho area, maybe even an EOR strip is just ludicrous and it's just preposterous. I just don't see any benefit. Yes, ice cream. No to the alcohol. There is no point, no rhyme, rhyme or reason. I also heard rumors that there's going to be uh some other things going on outside there, too. I drove by uh Davis Island, the downtown area, I think November 4th. There was like a rave party out in out in front of 220 and 28, 218. It was appalling. This this uh little paradise was kids friendly, family friendly. used to go to have pizzas there and you know enjoy the ballpark enjoy many of the activities there and to add another place is just I just don't understand it so I strongly oppose that thank you >> thank you very much next speaker please >> so approach whatever area um here is documents [snorts] and I can go over. >> Okay. Start with your name. >> Oh, and then this too. >> Mr. Chairman, a speaker waiver forum. Uh please acknowledge your presence. One name uh Susan Gullage. Thank you. Four minutes please. >> Thank you. Start with your name. You have four minutes. >> Okay. Hi, guys. I'm Scott Defrades, uh 410 East Davis. I was speaking on the 30th as well. Um I've worked as a uh 32 years as a registered nurse. I'd be happy to um resume upon request um at Tampa General Hospital specializing in trauma, burn, ICU, emergency care, and education. I'm also a teaching um uh instructor at Hillsboro College for over a decade and I strongly oppose this based on health and other reasons. So, I want to clarify and also apologize if I didn't make my concerns um more vocal, especially on behalf of all the residents that live within 250 ft. The people that live in 250 ft did speak. Jerry Green um on Pat Green, also my wife Jamie Defrades. Um Mark Taylor also signed a um a application. I've got to find that. Um and then I'll show it to you in a second. But those are the people that are directly directly um uh um taken by this uh proposal. They are within the 250 ft. So um I want to make sure that the location um currently is design is not designated as a wet zone. Um, and the surrounding block includes family oriented service-based businesses such as TNL Nails, Duckweed Urban Grocery, and Wag the Dog. So, introducing alcohol services into this environment and within 39 ft of residential homes is incompatible to the character and the need of the neighborhood. Um, one waiver would reduce the required residential buffer from 250 ft, 250 ft to just 39 ft. Um, that's an 84% reduction. the place's alcohol services virtually in someone's backyard. Mine and the other five people that I told you about. As a certified board registered nurse with decades of experience in acute care, I can attest to serious health consequences and chronic sleep disruption and stress. These are not abstract concerns. They are well doumented contributors to cardiovascular disease, mental health decline, and a weakened immune function. The proximity of this alcohol service to residential homes introduces noise, traffic, late night disturbances and directly threatens the well-being of nearby families. This is a public health issue as much as a zoning one. I'd like to refer now to this up on the board right here on the Elmo. If you can go ahead and hit that and then I put that in your packet. These are reasons I've got to convince I guess three of you guys why this is not a good idea. Yes to ice cream, but no to these things. Health reasons right there. We've got late night activity related disturbances can disrupt sleep. I can agree to that. Um increases stress for nearby residents. Zoning violations, requested waiverss, um undermine the intent of Tampa zoning code, which protects residential buffers. That's what this is. It's a buffer between um the existing uh places and the residential areas. Community opposition. I um also in your packet you have over 89 Tampa area residents signed a petition in just one week opposing um this is with change.org and then also 50 of those residents are from Davis Island. So to say that this is an a situation where you have so much support that's not the case. Um, don't do this. Um, misrepresentation. This is um if this is an ice cream shop, alcohol services is unnecessary um to misleading to the public. And then you also have some more information in your packet. That's four minutes. >> You got 30 seconds left. >> Okay. Yeah. Um, so I just want to make sure that we are not against ice cream. We are against alcohol creeping into spaces meant for families and quiet living. Please reject this application. protect the health and safety and character of our neighborhood, especially for those who live within 250 ft of the buffer that was created by this board city council in the past. Thank you so much. >> Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. [snorts] >> Good afternoon, city council members. I'm Gary Brown. I'm a and I have been sworn. I'm a 42-year resident of Davis Islands, and I've served on the VRB and the DI Stewardship Committee, both for eight years. I mentioned this because I bring a different perspective of what this application means to Davis Islands. I'm not just some old longtime resident who's opposed to change. I'm an owner of 404 East Davis Boulevard, the closest single family property to the applicant, just 60 feet away across uh Chesapeake Avenue to the south. I was out of town at the first reading of this application. So, I'm here to state my opposition to the three requested waiverss reducing the separation of beer and wine locations. There are already eight different places to purchase beer and wine uh within the two blocks of the village. Do we really need one more? Reducing the required parking by 95% for what is now a greatly expanded service area of over 4500 square ft mostly outside. Just doesn't make sense, does it? The applicant could use that outdoor space for on-site parking, but instead installed turf to increase the allowable serving area. Why is this okay [snorts] when it's been known that parking has been a problem in the village for decades? Reducing the separation buffer to nearby single family to just 39 ft. This location is on the southern edge of the village abuting single family residences. Maybe the standard for the uh current dissonance is excessive in the minds of city council today, but this separation is in the code for a reason, which you've already heard about. I don't believe that anyone who has previously spoken in favor of this application actually lives within a thousand ft of it. I'm all in favor of a successful business such as the ice cream shop. This request appears to me that the owner of this property is hedging his bet that if the ice cream shop fails, he'll still have the beer and wine license to perhaps open a different kind of business in the future without permission. I respectfully request that you deny this. >> Thank you very much. Any other members of the public wish to speak to this item? Applicant, would you like a rebuttal? Alex Shaylor, 400 North Ashley Drive. Um, bear with me. I have a couple different points that I want to address that were just raised in public comment. Um, the first one, I think there was some speculation and maybe some binder handouts about this not being a complete application. Staff has complete discretion to set these applications for city council. They're not automatically put on an agenda. So, I just wanted to make that perfectly clear. Um and the second point I wanted to note is in regards to parking. There were some comments made about the fact that this was not addressed at first reading. Um this is the exact slide from the October 30th presentation in which I said that we are the outdoor space is driving up the parking requirement and thus we're required a pretty substantial waiver. I think we discussed that in detail. Um I think that was understood why that waiver is there. If somebody was drinking a Sprite or a Coke out there, we would not have to park them. But because this is an alcohol application, we have to count them as occupancy in the backyard area. The backyard's around 3,000 square feet. That's the size of my backyard at home. So, it's not not a large space. Um the next point I wanted to note um was in regards I think there was some talk about the distance waiver that's noted code section compliance in case it wasn't clear at the first reading. I wanted you all to have a copy of that. Um and then there was a comment made about uh precedent setting. This was also shown at the first reading as well. Um this site is commercially zoned. So, this isn't going to set a precedent that alcohol is going to extend further into the district, going to extend further into residential areas. The site is commercially zoned. And again, these hours correspond to alcohol sales. Somebody could operate an establishment there doing, you know, any other commercial allowed use for until all hours of the morning if they wanted to. Um, this is specifically related to alcohol sales. Um, and that brings me to my next point, which is that, and we discussed this at first reading as well, there's a lot of talk about, and in the letters submitted, adhere to the code, adhere to the code, there shouldn't be waiverss to the code. The code allows you to sell alcohol until 3:00 a.m. So, that's why those specific protections are in place. Of course, you don't want somebody drinking alcohol until 3:00 a.m. next to your residential property. I understand that, and that's exactly why we have taken the liberty to make commitments to this this proposal. Again, we are proposing to end alcohol sales at 9ine on the weekdays and at 10 on the weekends. I'm gonna quote Chairman Clinton and again, I know he's already been quoted once. He's going to get quoted again that this is a very modest application and that is why those that goes in tandem with the waiver request. If we were seeking 3 a.m. hours, this wouldn't be happening. We would not be here. Again, we feel that the limited hours, the commitment to no outdoor amplified sound, that is what makes that waiver viable and what makes this blendable with the residential community. Um, there were some concerns and I know this has been been mentioned before about this becoming South Howard. If we judged every application with the fear that the neighborhood would become South Howard, nobody would be drinking at any establishments anywhere. I mean, you all have approved, you know, bars and restaurants within Palomia and within different neighborhoods around the city, and people love those. People love a place to go grab a drink. That doesn't mean that some neighborhood's going to become South Howard because we allow alcohol sales until 9:00 p.m. at night. It's not that is not a direct correlation. Um, my last and final point is I did want to reiterate that nothing has changed from October 30th. Nothing. We had a waiver that we were required to include on the plan that wasn't specifically on the plan, but was robustly discussed at this first reading. That is the only difference. and we made all the required site plan changes which were adopted in the motion to be made between readings. There is no new information here. We have made no other changes. This is exactly the same. What has changed between October 30th and today is extreme online fear-mongering via next door and people rallying the troops to come show up here. Our supporters unfortunately worked during the day. Could not make it to the second reading, but I think you all heard how excited a lot of the neighborhood is about this establishment. So, I'm happy to answer any questions. If you need any other clarification on anything, please help me now. >> Councilwoman Hart, >> thank you. Um, I [clears throat] just want to reiterate, no amplified sound is on the site plan. >> That's correct. Um, staff, I think Mr. Deart, >> uh, Leo Debart development coordination. Uh, yes. Uh, councilwoman, that those changes have been made and that note is on the site plan. >> Thank you. Um, is no chairs and tables on the site plan in the outdoor area? >> Think that might have been confused with the other the 220 application. >> That wasn't discussed during the >> Yeah, that was 220. >> Oh, okay. I I could have sworn it was both. >> It was just 220 because we're counting this as parking in the outdoor area and on 220 we weren't. So, we couldn't have service out there. So there will be but that's >> but there's no no there's no tables and chairs children's play area outside. We have committed to no alcohol service outside. >> Okay. >> So you could get a drink and walk out back there but you can't purchase a drink back there. >> I don't know what that was. >> I don't either. Um Okay. So, >> [clears throat] >> um, and then the final question I have is on the site plan, does it say it's open between till 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Wednesday and 10:00 p.m. Thursday through Sunday, or is it just alcohol sales? >> It has hours of operation, too, because we clarified this because before it was just governed AB sales, but recently staff has asked that we include the hours of operation. Okay. So, so on the site plan, the hours of operation are we can >> Yeah. Let me see. It's like on this very top. >> There we go. Yeah. The little wheel >> on the very very top. >> Yep. >> Other way. >> You guys know I like my digital presentations. I don't like to use these. [laughter] >> You're going old school. >> I know. >> Um >> we're not going to be able to read that. >> Um Can you see that >> the Wolf has really great lenses. Okay. I can share my screen so that uh Kelsey can see it. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Oh, can you put that back because we can't >> We're not speed readers. >> Yeah, we're not speed readers. >> There we go. >> Monday through Wednesday, 1000 p.m. and then 11:00 p.m. Thursday through Sunday hours >> hours of operation. Okay. >> Amplified town is prohibited. >> Prohibited. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate those. >> Council mana. So, I'm thinking a lot about this because we got a lot of information and uh I love ice cream. I eat ice cream every day and Tampa needs more ice cream shops. So, that you know that that's that's great. So, when I saw this, I said great, you know, another place that I can visit because again, you know, I try to >> especially if it's questions. We're not pontificating yet because it's not closed. So, just questions. >> Okay. If this business fails, and I hope it doesn't fail. I I don't wish any failure in anything. What happens then with the uh the limitations that we have on the serving of or the sales of alcohol? I see 9 and 10:00, 9 on the weekdays and 10 on the weekends. If this business goes under and then a restaurant wants to come in, uh do they come before us again and say, "Well, you know, we want to serve till 1:00 or 12:00." If it's a different establishment in the future since the alcohol goes with the land, what happens? Does it reset? What happens? Susan Johnson, Councilman, you're correct. The the alcohol approval does go with the land. So, the the um special use permit is for a small venue, but the specific use is a restaurant. So, I know we keep talking about an ice cream shop, but it's a restaurant, which is the use that you would be approving if you approve this. So, it doesn't ever have to be an ice cream shop. It could be a restaurant tomorrow because that's the use that they're requesting. So I understand that you know again everybody keeps saying ice cream shop but it is a restaurant would be the the approval but >> the hours remain >> the hours of operation would stay the same unless someone came in to try to change them. >> So if uh another restaurant came in >> restaurant came in they are going to be to the 9 and 10:00 weekdays weekends. >> Correct. Whatever is on that site plan is part of your approval. >> Okay. So there's no outdoor patio furniture. Is it just going to be an open turf space? What What is it going to look like? Cuz I saw in one of the renderings there's one person standing there and it was like seven and a half square feet per person kind of thing. But what is going to be out there? What are they intending to put out there? Is like a children's play area like a jungle gym kind of monkey bars, stuff like that. But we just wanted parents to be able to go check on their children while holding the beverage. It's not really intended to be used as like some outdoor gathering space. It's intended to be used for children to play, but we don't want it to be like that lodge situation where it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, you can't cross this line while you're holding a drink. I mean, that's that was the intent. And then Miss Arman did bring to my attention that I misspoke on the hours. I think those were intended to be changed between readings. Um, but the site plan still shows the 10 p.m. weekday, 11 p.m. weekend. If that is an issue for people and we're we're really set on the sign and 10, we're happy to do this repeat first reading, change those on the site plan, make any other commitments we need to make, and repeat second reading. We're more than I apologize for that. I thought that was fixed between readings. So, >> okay. Some clar some clarity. Will it actually exist on the site plan? >> Can we put it up? >> Yeah, I think this site plan says >> and this is what the staff has >> 10 and 11 and we intended for it to be 9 and 10. So, we're happy to revise that. Like I said, open this as a first reading, revise that. We completely intended for it to be 9 and 10. I think it just this must have got missed. staff. Is this the Is this the site plan that you have that we have or do we know? >> Yeah, >> I think I printed the latest one. I think this is it. >> Yeah, Leo dear Leven development coordination. Yeah, that's the copy of the the latest iteration of the site >> to get the original intented hours. We need to go back and have another another first >> this could I mean this would be the first reading then we have another second >> change between first and another >> another change to the change. Okay, got it. >> Anything else? Any council have any other questions? Councilwoman Hortech. >> So, if we are going to go to first reading again, >> um, can we get a commitment to no chairs and tables? >> Sure. >> Can we add that to the second? >> 100%. We're happy to add that. Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. So, Mr. Shelby, how would we like to deal with this one? >> Get a motion to continue the item or sorry, >> I'm read it like a first reading. being present, >> make ordinance being presented first reading and then read the title and then make the changes that you want to have accomplished between first and second reading. >> So, Councilman Vieira, did you did you copy those change requests, the change of the hours and no outdoor furniture? [clears throat] >> Councilman Vieira, when you're ready, would you read this as a first reading, please? >> Motion to close. Motion to close. Councilman V. Second from >> Councilman Mascal. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. I have it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I hereby uh read an ordinance presented for second reading, adoption. Ordinance. >> First reading. >> I'm sorry. Long day, long week, long year. I hereby read an ordinance presented for first reading and adoption. Thank you for that, council. >> First reading consideration. >> Yeah, not >> sorry. My bad. My bad. For first reading. I'll end it there. An ordinance approving a special use permit SU2 for alcoholic beverage sale small venue consumption on premises only making lawful the sale of beer and wine at or from the certain plot lot attract of land located at 340 East Davis Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. More particularly described in section two providing that all ordinances or parts ordinance in conflict are repealed providing an effective date with hours of operation and outdoor furniture uh notations uh included there and restrictions. >> First and second reading. >> Yes, sir. Between. >> Yeah. So, um, hours of operation, 9:00 p.m. Monday through through Wednesday and 10:00 p.m. Thursday through Sunday and no chairs and tables or outdoor furniture um on site plan. >> Okay. So, we have a motion from Councilman Vieira, second from >> Second. Can I discuss Councilman? >> May I pontificate? >> You may pontificate. >> The words of 2025 are slow roll and pontificate and the most used. I have both of those. >> So, I'm seconding this. We take it back to first reading consideration because of these changes. But when I looked at the map, uh this is the last commercial property before residential. >> I didn't think about this. I thought, you know, this is the Davis Island commercial district. So, there's a house across the street. There's apartments in the back. And uh and then if you look over uh further north, there's Molly Malones and Anchor Bar, you know, which are full liquor, right? Not too far away. Uh but this is the last commercial property before you get into the neighborhood. So, uh you know, we're going to take it back to first reading consideration, but I'm going to think about this further and I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. >> Okay. So, we have a motion, we have a second. Any further discussion? Please report your vote. >> Oh, no. We need to we need to voice vote because it's first reading. >> Oh, first reading now. That's right. Yeah. Okay. >> Vieira, >> yes. >> Carlson's absent. Miranda is absent. Manusc >> Yes. >> Herac, >> yes. >> Young, >> and Clinton, >> yes. >> Motion carried unanimously with Carlson being absent at vote and Miranda being absent. Second reading and adoption will be held on December 4th, 2020 2025 at 10 o'clock a.m. and city council chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida 33602. >> Thank you very much. Can I get a motion to open the 130 public hearings? >> We have a motion council, second from Councilwoman Herk. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Eyes have it. Okay. Item number 65. >> What about 62? No, I I would we need to dispose of item 65 for >> Okay, we have a motion to withdraw item 65 for Councilman Escal. Second from >> second for Councilwoman Herk. All those in favor say I. I oppose. Eyes have it unanimously. Item 65 is withdrawn. Okay. Item number 62. >> Good afternoon, Council Cotton Development Coordination. Um we have a PowerPoint that's revised from the one that was presented to account prep was uploaded into onbase. Um with Dana helped and she split it into the into 62 63 and 64 all on the same PowerPoint. I do have a question for council since you have a long agenda still ahead. Want me to just charge through this? >> Charge through it. >> Okay. So um Eric Cotton again. So the last time we were here before you was in the September workshop in which we discussed the changes that had to be made from the original July 2024 due to the changes to Senate Bill 180 and the um changes that were made to that. So we have a couple of amendments go real quick. The let's make this smaller which was to change the bill to line in seminal heights. included in that change are graphics that reflect specifically how you measure that in the drawings and then that was that was one of the council initiated just hold on a second >> and if you wouldn't mind just for the public ex just clarifying what that is because I've gotten a couple of questions from seminal heighters >> okay so the bill two line is measured from based on the from the property line back to the property based on the average of the two lots on either side of side of the subject property >> give me PTSD [laughter] No, but I so so the question is the build to line where is it being measured from? That was specifically the question I saw. >> It's measured from the property line back towards the structure itself. >> Okay. So it's not from the middle of the street. It's not from >> not from the street, not from the edge of pavement. It's measured from the property line. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. And that's what the drawings will now definitely reflect that change. >> Great. Appreciate that. And the other changes were um administratively done either by myself or by Dana. Um one was the appeals of the ARC. Instead of going directly to council, they would be appealed to the ARC. Um decisions for the ARC administrator. Um the use to use buffer which had to do with residential having to provide the buffer when adjacent to commercial. That was something that was inadvertently put in the code that we have since removed. And the other one was generator stands and setbacks and AC units. As TCO, if you recall the conversation, as to require people to get up and out of the flood zone, AC units had to be up and out of the flood zone. We incorporated all that into the code had not been previously in the code. >> Yes, ma'am. >> And what just a reminder, what is that setback? >> The setback is three feet. That's what's been in the code for as long as I've been at the city. So, we just >> Yes, I appreciate I just wanted uh Yeah, just wanted to make sure people know. >> Um, >> so that was the first round. That's item 62. Just if there's no questions on that. >> Any questions? Hearing none. Next. >> Well, I think you have to take a vote on I thought you were going to send present them off and then we're Do >> you want me to do them all? Okay. >> Do them all vote. >> Okay, that's cool. Um, next is a was the text amendments to comply with Senate Bill 1080, which you know, state should have been 180 and 1080. They should have kept a different number affiliated with that. There's two of those. Um, one is to create the standards for site plans. Some of that was not currently in the code and they were narrowed down just to the variances because of Senate Bill 180. Yes, ma'am. Yes sir. >> I'm just asking are are you into number 63 now or >> I'm into item number 63. That is what we have agreed on. >> We're going to just have him present all all items and then vote. >> Okay. So her together voted separately. >> Yes. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Follow along. >> Follow. [laughter] >> So the only change was strictly to the variance review board. The application for the variances because Senate Bill 180 prohibited changes to the design exceptions on other items that we wanted to make modifications to. And the other um section is to 284.2.5 2.5 which is the tree and landscape regulations about um tree removals which was instead of having which would allow the arburish report to be used instead of requiring staking out the actual site unless of course natural resources staff says you need to stake out the site that's still in the code that would allow that requirement to be to be in there. So that would be that's the summary of of item 63 or proposed ordinance for the for item 63. And [clears throat] then going into um 64 is the extended family residence language which the amendment was to try to bring it into compliance with the changes that were made to the accessory dwelling units um in probably two cycles ago. So that was the changes. Um basically property should be homesteaded. Um non-conforming structure could be used for a extended family residence. Previously we we would deny it administratively. It would come before city council. And then um the yearly the inspections during CO we stopped doing the inspections. We changed it to just doing an a signed affidavit saying that who the individual were living there and that we just codified that requirement. And that's um any questions on item 65. Any questions for staff? >> Okay, let's do um for um public comment. I'm just going to call them one at a time. Is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak to item 62? >> Okay, hearing none. Is anybody in the audience who wishes to speak to item 63? We have two. >> We we the staff presented them all then we're I'm just asking public comment individually. So, you want to speak to item 63? >> Yes. 63. >> Okay. Very good. stage. Start with your name please. >> Caroline Bennett. Um, I want to say how happy I am about the site plan for the VRB. Um, I my forehead is bloody from beating my head against the wall at the VRB and trying to get things done right. I was at a hearing where the hearing had been going on for an hour and one of the pe one of the members finally said, "Is this a one story or twotory?" And they said, "Oh, it's twotory." Wasn't reflected. They didn't they didn't even have the footprint of what they were building. They we they asked, "Well, how many square feet?" We haven't decided yet. It was It was horrible. So, I'm very very very happy to see that. My only question about and and one of the parts about the tree I really like. My only question is the staking. I don't I don't fully understand why it's now becoming optional. Um the staking is very helpful. We tend to be visual human beings. The natural resources people, I think they like being able to go to the site because they do and and see and I know the neighbors and other people that, you know, they can't. Some of them don't even know how to look up an arborist report and so they don't understand what's being done. But if if you're walking your dog and you see the stakes, it's like, oh well that's good, that's bad, whatever. So I'm not I don't understand the staking and I the making it optional and I don't think that's a good idea. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next speaker, please >> Stephanie Pointer. Um, one thing >> different. >> Oh. Oh, you're doing tree. I can I do the >> Well, extended. >> Is there anybody else here that wishes to speak to 63? Hearing none. Are you here to speak to 64? >> Well, kind of. And all three actually. I just got a text message that says >> the July 2025 >> privately publicly initiated tech cycle has zero information online, nothing on the website, and supposedly they had a public meeting this week on it. >> Did I miss something? >> This is 24. >> This is 24. Okay, this is back it up. Okay, there we go. Um, >> never mind. >> The extended family units. Um, you know, like I said, and the homestead covers it for my military folks. um assuming that they are um keeping their homestead in Tampa over in Florida. But um I'm concerned that you can't charge a family member money. I'm sorry, but you know um I I have a friend who lives across the street whose mother lives with her. She's 85 and you know what? She gives them money. So why would you say that an extended family member can't give you money to pay their way? I mean it takes away some of the power from the people who are you are trying to help. Sometimes very very proud people have to live with their children and they don't want to live there for free but this ordinance makes it not okay to live there for for and pay some rent or pay a utility or pay something. And as I stated earlier my I own my mother's house. I made her pay rent because otherwise she was going to drink it all. Paid the taxes. That's all it did. But it paid the taxes. So sometimes there are other extinuing factors. I don't understand why that would be illegal. It just doesn't make any sense to me that it would be illegal because that's what happens when it's in the code. So thank you >> staff. I had the same question. So why go to the wide why? That doesn't make sense to me either. >> Eric development coordination. There's this distinction in the code between an accessory dwelling unit and an extended family residence that the extended family residence has been in the code I think was in the code under chapter 43A. So that language has been in the code for a very long time. Right now the right now it says we cleared it up because as it says in the code right now it says residents may not it says may not pay rent. We change it to a shall. The goal is for an extended family residence now is to be family a family member and the concern is if you start regardless of what people sign if you start allowing people to pay rent or pay for they can't be separately um metered for utilities so there's no way to capture that cost but if you start saying to somebody well you can I have an extended family residence you're my cousin now and you can pay me $1,000 a month to live here >> that's the concern that that's the concern concern that that council historically has had on these on the um on the special use requirements for extended families. I mean, if Councilman >> Councilman Miranda was here, he'd be talking about all the ones in West Tampa. >> Oh, yes. Oh, yeah. [laughter] We know. But I mean, it seems weird making somebody criminal when all now is just a wink wink nod nod. It seems kind of odd to codify that you you're turning that criminal act. [snorts] Councilwoman Herk, >> I I I've spoken about this before. I do not understand why we have two different ways especially now that ADUs are becoming more prevalent. Not only that, um I actually we were speaking about this earlier about the fact that uh there is legislation that has been put into Tallahassee that would make ADUs legal everywhere and to totally take our it out of our hands. And I really think that in the LA land development code update, if we're not doing it now, I think in the land development code update, we need to reconsider extended family dwellings to simply be accessory dwelling units. I don't see the difference right now. >> I I mean I I understand there's a technical difference, but I don't see that people are using them that way because yes, technically you can already you can already it's not mandated. It says it's illegal to pay, but I wouldn't know of anyone who wouldn't like a and and we can't stop that. If if the person living there pays, we can't do anything about that. So, I that's what that's where I've always had a frustration with extended family dwelling units. Um I think ADUs, the the rules behind it can fix it. I'm I'll support this now because I know there's some change that will be coming from the state level, whatever it's going to be um in the spring. So, I'm fine with this for now, but either waiting for the state or or looking at it um during our revamp of the land development code is something I'd like to see. >> Yes, ma'am. Yes. So, my understanding of the difference between the two is for a taxing purposes from the property appraiser will tax an ADU because it's income generated where an extended family for a family member is not supposed to be income generating. So, they don't send that as an additional tax on the property. So would that would you think that distinction would be still there with a may versus shower >> for >> I mean >> I'm not the proper praiser I can't I would imagine the answer to that question would still be yes but I can't that's a question you'd have to ask them counciloman you had any questions >> well that was actually going to be um my question just you know language is is um one word can really change things so the difference between the may and the sha Um I guess I kind of you know have the the same sentiments. Um and then why why the why the change? Why change? Cuz May is more um you know permissive and Shiao is kind of more definitive. So what why that change? >> It's been a discussion in the time I've been with the city from city council. Again, you know, one individual who brings it up a lot is not here today. Um, but that's been always a concern from city council was people getting extended family residences and then turning over that turning them into rental properties. This is before ADUs became a thing in the city. You know, ADUs are outside of the area near near um Lowry Park Zoo, central Tampa. ADUs elsewhere in the city have only been around for about two years. Prior to that, that was the only area that allowed them where extended family residences allowed them forever everywhere else. Ma'am, >> Seminal Heights and Tampa Heights have for the last 10 or since 2007. >> Well, Seminal Heights has allowed them since the Seminal Heights district went into effect. Yes, correct. I apologize. But before that, extended family residences were the other place in that area by Lowry Park. >> So, what's the what is the sentiment of Tampa Sha versus May as the Tampa City Council? Is there >> I don't think >> I don't think we need to change it. >> I think May is fine. >> I'm just in form a little conversation. May. Councilman Carlson, what what's your feeling on this? >> May, >> did Mr. >> Well, I'm just I'm just I'm just Yeah, we're not there yet. >> Well, I know, but we're still >> Okay. Okay. I guess any of the questions? Mr. Sink, did you want to speak to this item? >> Yes, please. >> Go ahead. >> He's not Mr. Sink anymore. [laughter] He's planning commissioner sync. >> So I I promise I will >> So I'm going to call you TPO sync. [laughter] >> You know what? I've been called a lot of things. Um >> I'm sorry. He is right. Commissioner Elect. >> See, there we go. [laughter] >> Go ahead. Well, good afternoon. >> Whatever your name is. >> Matt Sink, uh 410 West Park Avenue. Um on item 64 um something I just wanted to bring up and it's the May versus the Shia thing which I think is really important is I'm not sure also how we're getting around um bill 180. So you can't be more restrictive than we were prior to the hurricane and that sounds exactly like what we're doing. Um but I wanted to show you an example of something that is getting built in Tampa Heights and as a extended family residence, right? So it has um the overlay for design, right? So it's in the historic district. So it has more cost and expense to get built. And this is a 700 ft² unit. So first floor is garage, second floor is living space, right? So you're talking about 377 square ft. I think when it's all said and done, they're very expensive to build. You're paying for minimums for concrete. You're paying for a whole air conditioning system. You're paying a lot of really expensive things. So if you look at like sticks and bricks, just not even land, but just sticks and bricks before margins even added to it. you about $165,000 to build this. Well, we have an aging population where a lot of the boomers are starting to retire and they're going to go into retirement incomes versus, you know, their normal. They want to be closer to family. That may versus shall is a huge difference because people can offset some of the expenses, but they might want to take their pension money or the retirement money and apply it towards offsetting that cost that their other family member is going to take on. So, I think there's a whole another layer here which is like they're expensive to build. We want people to be close to the family. We want these things to build community. But we also have to find a way where the balance is done where people can help offset their family members in a way that makes sense. So take taking it to the shall really kills family members ability to take on that responsibility and just puts more on the government, public services, charities than we actually need to do. So, I just want to bring up the cost factor of this and how you kind of make that work in reality because they're just really expensive to build. Price per square foot, you're looking at what 450 bucks a square foot. I mean, it's a lot, but because you're paying for little tiny square footage. Um, and I think that's something that would be important for city council to consider when looking at something like this. >> Thank you. >> Thank you guys. I appreciate it. >> Miss Bennett, you want to speak to a different item? >> 64, which I have not spoken on. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you, >> Caroline Bennett. Um, I just want to point out that extended family re units have always been allowed everywhere in the city. Any anybody in the city can build an extended family unit. There's no uh geographic restrictions. Um, as far as the may and the shall, normally to me it's pretty clear what the difference between the two, but in the context of this sentence, honestly, I I can't figure out the distance the difference. And frankly, I'm a grammar Nazi. So, you know, [laughter] I have to decide, do I want to correct their grammar? Do I want to have friends? Um, [laughter] but um I'm not seeing it. But let me just point out, I went to a lot of meetings about ADUs. And one of the things that was brought out is that you if it's going to have income, it is actually sectioned out on the survey. the property appraiser uh evaluates it separate from the other residents if there's going if it's going to be income producing and that portion of the property the percentage of the property uh is not uh doesn't get the protection of the 3% um cap of the of growing every year. Um whereas something like this because there is no income it would be different. Um, so honestly, I almost feel like we have to have the property appraiser um, weigh in on this. I'm not an expert. I've just gone to the meetings and they said there were definite tax consequences if it's going to produce income. And so, I mean, you know, grandma can all always slip you a couple hundred. >> Well taken. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Anybody Anybody else wishes to speak to any one of these three items? I'll open it up again for all three items. Anybody else? Hearing none. Let's deal with one at a time. Let's go with item 62. Item 62, Mr. Carlson, would you like to >> Oh, we don't have >> Okay. Can I have a motion to close all public hearings? >> I actually have a question. >> Okay. Councilwoman, >> um, can I just have one? Uh, so in uh because we are debating May versus Sha, uh, can you give us your legal opinion on this? >> So, Dana Crosby, call your city attorney's office. I I think that um Miss Bennett and um Eric Cotton have given the history of how that has always been handled and how that's always been defined and the reasons why do go back to your tax consequences. It's very correct that may and shall have very different meanings when you're looking at laws and bills and whatnot. But if someone were to charge, it says they may not currently under this code. If they were to charge rent, they would no longer be an EFR. They would now be an ADU. and that could give rise to other issues such as zoning issues and whatnot. So, if you would like us to change it back to May just because you're more comfortable with that, just understand that the imple I had no Senate Bill 180 concerns with the shell because we're not changing anything in our practice. Nobody's having to do something now that they don't have to do last year. Um, you still can't charge rent or you're going to have other consequences such as zoning and and taxes. So you can change it back and there would be no heartburn, but I'm fully comfortable either way. >> And I think that's really my question is if it doesn't matter if we change it either way, then what does it matter? >> Yeah, the practice will stay the same. It was really meant to clarify just so people really understand now that like Eric said, we're having more ADUs coming into the community, but they're very limited geographically. This was made really intended to make it abundantly clear that if you want to build an EFR anywhere in the city where ADU may not be allowed, then you're not going to be able to charge your family rent because it's an it's an EFR. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Can I just ask a clarifying question, >> Mr. Carlson? Councilman Carlson. >> Yeah. E in either interpretation um does it allow uh would it allow um Airbnb under state law? We the Airbnb is these are not supposed to be rent generating properties. So if you build an EFR, you must it like or Eric said, we go and check every year to make sure you have your family member in that building. So that's the intent. If that were to be misused, then we would have to do a code enforcement action. >> I just want to make sure because somebody's going to ask us. But the other thing is with the short-term rentals, you know, we do have our we predated some of that, which is why we have a longer period of time than than a lot of other cities. But this should never be a short-term rental because now you're violating your approval. >> Okay. Okay. Can I get a motion to close all the 130s? >> We have a motion, Councilwoman Herk, a second from Councilman Maniscal. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Eyes have it. Councilman Carlson, >> I need to read the whole thing or Yeah. Yeah. Uh, I move item number 62, file number E2025-8, CH27, ordinance being presented for first reconsideration and ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida, relating to publicly initiated text amendments making revisions to city of Tampa code of ordinances amending chapters 27 zoning and land development amending section 27-43 definitions amending section 27-118 approvals by ARC administrator amending section 27-211.1 general administrative procedures amending section 27-211.2.1 general district development standards for seminal heights residential single family detached SH-R district um amending section 27-211.2.2 two general district development standards for seminal heights- residential single family attached SH-RS- A district amending section 27-211.2.3 general district development standards for seminal heights residential multifamily SH-RM uh district amending section 27-211.2.4 Four, general district development standards for seminal heights residential office SH-RO district amending section 27-211.2.5 general district development standards for seminal heights commercial neighborhood SH- CN district amending section 27-211.6 Six, development standards for commercial mixeduse or other non-residential SH- CG and SH-CI development amending section 27-2843.3 landscape area and tree planning requirements amending section 27-290.6 air conditioning and poolled equipment providing for severability repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith providing effective date. >> Thank you. We have a motion for Councilman Carlson. We have a second for Councilman Masko. This is a legislative matter first. We just do a a verbal vote right? >> Yeah. All those in favor say I. >> I opposed. Eyes have it. I just the the the electronic vote was flashing at me and I'm going I am I confused. >> No worries. Motion carry unanimously. Second read and adoption will be held on December 4th, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in City Council Chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd Flor, Tampa, Florida 33602. with Miranda being absent. >> With Miranda being absent. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Item number 63. Councilman Vieira. Oh sorry. >> Huh? Yeah. Wait. Because I went that way. Now I'm come back this way. >> Are you second guessing my strategy? Okay. Councilman Council Vera noted. >> Yes, sir. I read an ordinance presented for first reading consideration ordinance, city of Tampa, Florida, relating to publicly initiated text amendments making revisions of city of Tampa code of ordinances amending chapter 27 zoning and land development creating section 27-71 site development plan for variances amending section 27-284.2.5 2.5 permit for grant two removal application required documentation standards and criteria for decision inspections petition for review providing for severability repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances and conflict therewith providing an effective date >> we have a motion from council second from councilomano all those in favor say I oppose it >> motion carried unanimously with Miranda being absent second read and adoption will be held on December 4th 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in city council chambers 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida 33602. >> Thank you. Item number 64, Councilwoman Young, would you like to read that for us please? Item number 64, file number E2025-8, chapter 27, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida, relating to publicly initiated text amendments making revisions to city of Tampa code of ordinances amending section 27 to 132, regulations governing individual special uses, providing for severability, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith, providing an effective date, Thank you. We have a motion from Councilwoman Young. Council Councilwoman Herzek. >> Um I would still I would like to change that shall to may. Um and I I don't know what sentence it is. So is there a way Can you could you just put it on the wolf and I'll read that sentence out loud because that way we don't have to open the the hearing again. [laughter] So, this is my amendment for you, uh, Councilwoman Young. Um, for, uh, section 27-132, subsection F, the occupants of the extended family residence may not pay rent for the use of residence or property. Do you accept the amendment? >> Okay. We we have we have a a friendly amendment for Councilwoman Herzek. You accept the friendly amendment? >> Yes. >> Okay. We have So, we we have a friendly amendment for Councilwoman Hertech. The maker of the motion has accepted that amendment and so the motion for item 64 as amended. All those in favor say I. >> I oppose. The eyes have it unanimously. >> Motion carry unanimously with Miranda being absent. Second reading and adoption will be held on December 4th, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in city council chambers t 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd floor, Tampa, Florida 33602. >> Thank you, Councilman Horte. Um, I want to talk about 66. >> Yeah, we're at We are moving on to item number 66. Should we give a staff presentation [clears throat] first or >> I don't know that we need to. That's that's kind of why I want to have this discussion. Um, so staff came to me twice about this and I brought up every single thing that was brought up in public comment today and they wanted to bring it forward anyway. >> Okay. >> And I understand we're going to have people here to talk about it, but ultimately I don't even need know that we need to. I think there are other issues that we can we can debate and quite frankly I I I I don't know I don't want to spend a lot of time on something that we are not going to approve. >> Can I I I don't have a crystal ball but Councilwoman Carlson. >> Council [laughter] Councilwoman Carlson >> Councilman Carlson >> um what are you laughing at? Um, [laughter] so I've had a lot a lot of complaints about this. The gangs, the the motorized um uh uh vehicle uh motorized bicycles. They're running over people. They're threatening people. It's bad enough that there are a lot of bicyclists who aren't following the rules. Um there's all kinds of dangerous things. One of the reasons why Tampa gets a bad rap for bicycle safety is because there's so many people that don't ride them correctly and break all the rules. Um, I was when I was an activist before I got elected, I was out in front fighting against biking while black. It was a terrible policy. It was created by a mayor who intentionally was oppressing the black community in Tampa. And it was put in place um by a handful of people that created that policy and it included incentives uh to to um incentivize people to to check to check it up. I talked to the reporters who write the wrote the stories. It was not an accidental thing where they happened to pull over a bunch of black people and it was it was a horrific policy uh that was intended to oppress people and get them to force them to move out of the city which succeeded because a lot of people did move out of the city between that and renting while black. We absolutely cannot cannot um push this again again. If you're worried about um I don't know with all the new rules from the federal government if we're allowed to do this, but if if I what we could we have updates on biking while black occasionally. What we should do is get updates on this occasionally if we have it to make sure that nobody's nobody's abusing it and that the administration doesn't target anybody. But a random person, regardless of their color, is riding a a motorized bicycle and threatening people who are on bicycle or on foot uh uh should get a ticket. and and the gangs of people that are threatening people pulling up around the cars and threatening them. I have people calling me crying about that and they want the police to have more more. So, we need to make sure that it's not racially oppressive. Um although this mayor was one of the architects of biking while black, she apologized for it. I don't think she's going to do it again. Um so, uh what what we can do is try to put the safeguards in to make sure that doesn't happen. So, I I know you get grace >> I know we just did the grace of of having this discussion first. I think at this point I think it would be important to just follow council procedures and let's let's start with the presentation and let's just let's just do handle this as we normally would normal council business. So staff would you please do a presentation? >> Absolutely. Uh good afternoon Carl Brody legal department and uh here for first reading of item 66. Um, as you know, I think I talked with each one of you um, prior to bringing this forward because we're aware of some of the concerns that are out there and we wanted to provide some support and some comfort level that, you know, this ordinance is put in place purely as a public safety ordinance purely because we have received complaints. You've received the complaints and we've talked about that. City council members have se received these complaints from the public. Tampa police has received complaints from the public. I have reams of emails from the public with with concerns about this and also my parks department has received lots of complaints from the public based on large groups of bicyclists on these multimodal trails based on folks out there doing tricks and wheelies and things like that based on the electronic vehicles that are out there now. And remember, this is focused purely on our multimmoal trails right now. This isn't going to be something that's going to be um able to be enforced on our regular streets and um our regular parks. This is something that's for the multimolder trails. That's the the purpose to protect what those are put in place for, which you approved many years ago. Riverwalk, Beayshore Boulevard, other trails. They're intended for a specific purpose. And that purpose is being defeated because of folks out on the bikes doing tricks and wheelies, large groups of cyclists, and all these new electronic vehicles that are out on those trails impeding what the purpose is, which is for the regular members of our public to be able to enjoy, you know, traversing uh the Riverwalk, Beayore Boulevard, and other trails without, you know, being terrified that they're going to get knocked So, let's talk about what the ordinance does. What [clears throat] it does is it prohibits folks from do folks from doing wheelies, from doing tricks, from doing stunts. That's not going to be allowed. It sets a new speed limit on these trails down to 10 miles per hour, which is, you know, primarily to address the concerns with the electric vehicles that can, you know, get pretty high in their speed. We're also going to require groups of cyclists or groups of any um vehicles to ride to a breast in these areas. Obviously, if you ride to a breast, that gives room for the pedestrians, for others who are using the multimodal trails to be able to traverse without any complications. And um finally, we're going to limit the width of the vehicles that can be on these multimodal trails because their their purpose is really for walkers and cyclists and folks who are um not taking up a lot of space and allowing others to to get around and move without any concern. So that's what it does. It's very limited in terms of what the restrictions are. Um we do have enforcement mechanisms. We have to have the enforcement mechanisms and those are at the lowest level that we have which is $75 for a violation but and this is important and uh Councilman Clinton and I talked about this. We wanted to make sure that the public's aware of what the violation would be before we cite anybody and that's what we've uh got an agreement on. If this is approved, there will not be a citation for a violation of this ordinance for 30 days. And during that time, city parks and recreation and Tampa police will provide an educational campaign for the public to make them aware. We'll have signage up, but we'll have direct programs in place to make folks aware of what the potential violations can be. Um, one of the other issues that came up, and this was with uh, Councilwoman Young, we talked about this the other day, alternatives. If they kids can't do their tricks and all that good stuff out on the Riverwalk and other multimotal trails, what can they do? We checked. We have two parks that have skate parks, which allow that kind of activity, which allow you to do bike stunts and all that good stuff. Um the county has multiple skate parks which would also be viable alternatives for the kids to do this kind of thing. And also we don't this doesn't regulate the private uh sphere at all. So if they're, you know, in on private space, they can do whatever they want. That's not something that's controlled by this ordinance. The key is that, you know, we have these multimold trails for a specific purpose. And that's being defeated because we have large groups of cyclists. As you were saying, Councilman uh Carlson, we have large groups of cyclists. We have the groups on their ebikes and all that and they're not allowing the public to enjoy these spaces the way they should. Complaints have many, many complaints have come in. You all have received them. You know what I'm talking about. And that is the purpose here. What I want to do is bring up a couple of law enforcement officers who have observed what's been happening out there on the trails. They can talk to you about that a little bit and then as needed, we can have a further discussion on enforcement and whether the concerns raised earlier today are something that we need to um provide some kind of comfort level for you. So, first we'll have can we have the officers come up first? >> Let's continue the presentation because then actually Manako will be next to speak and then I'll go back to the people who have spoken already. So, >> okay. Thank you. Um I think you have >> planning planning. We're we're going to try to keep because we're trying to keep these presentations. I noticed the timer was not set. We're trying to keep this because we don't want to be here till midnight tonight. So, try to keep these kind of short. Okay. >> Sir, yeah. Thank you for having us. um came over to the bike unit in September of 2024. >> Start with your name, please. >> Sorry. >> Start with your name, please. >> Corporal Ryan Flanigan, Tampa Police. >> Uh came last year to the bike unit and I quickly learned from the officers on the squad the limitations they deal with when trying to enforce some of the problems that we deal with on a daily basis on the Riverwalk and that's kind of how this conversation got started. Um I can tell you the complaints that you all see are many. When we ride almost on a daily basis, we're stopped by numerous people that have and express these concerns to us also and we talk to them, explain what our limitations are and what we're trying to do to help them, but spoken to many people about this issue and there's a lot of concern within the community about it. And we are just our hands are kind of tied to what we can do to help them at that at this time. >> Okay. >> And just to piggyback with >> same thing with your name, Nate Horvath. on the sergeant of the bike squad. Just to piggy back with what Ryan uh said here, um numerous complaints. The main thing I I wanted to make sure you guys are aware of, we're here to educate them on this new rule. We're not going to be out there, you know, tackling people and taking them to jail. It's just one of those things to educate them. Listen, you guys got to slow down. You have to allow people to pass, popping wheelies, basic basic stuff. Um, when you get a large group of riders like that and they look like a gang, they're not necessarily a gang. It's 15, 16 year olds most of the time, but there are particular leaders of that group and those are the ones that we will be after. We'll be educating them very, very well. Um, but our number one goal is to not cite them like uh everybody was saying. We're going to just educate them on the rules and at that point then we'll we'll go forward. But uh at the end of the day, it's it's a few select riders that are leading these groups of bikers. Um we've sat and talked to them multiple times and they're very respectful 99% of the time and they listen to us, but there are a few that just like anywhere else that create some issues and that's what we're trying to deal with and trying to resolve all these complaints and I really appreciate your all's time. >> Thank you. Did you have something to add? >> Okay. you want to wrap it up? >> Yeah, we'll just wrap it up that we think it's an important ordinance. We think that it's something that was asked for that that that we've heard many complaints about. I mean, and that's one of the issues we run into is when we get these complaints from the public and you know, it seems like everybody is pretty much in favor of doing something to address the problem. So, we we we're bringing it to you to try to address the problem. And what I can say is that there are valid concerns raised from previous act actions those cannot be used against us now because that's not what's uh what this ordinance is for and that's not how it's going to be implemented. And just by the very narrow scope of it, it uh limits what the concerns raised were um how they can impact the different communities. >> Okay. Thank you. Um so it's going to be Counciloman Escalico, Councilman Vieira, and then we'll go back to the two speakers that have already spoken. Council, >> thank you very much. Uh sir, does this cover the Riverwalk? >> Riverwalk, Beayshore, and the other multimold trails. >> Thank you very much. So for the last five plus years I've received endless complaints about biker gangs and at first I go biker gangs on the riverwalk and I spent a lot of time on the riverwalk then more people started complaining then it was more people then friends of mine what are you going to do about these bike biker gangs what does it even look like so one Sunday night I was out there where you sit on like the swings kind of thing the the the you know two people can sit and all of a sudden it's like 30, 40 people very close together popping wheelies going through areas. This is like a Sunday at 700 p.m. There's kids, there's elderly people, there's families, there's individual people walking, there's people on a date, whatever. And I'm thinking to myself, this is what they mean. I mean, it's so it comes out of nowhere and they're so close to folks that I'm thinking, one head injury, one kid gets knocked over and slammed into the concrete. I go, "It's just a matter of time because it's so intense." One person complained and they said, you know, I guess he yelled at them saying, "Hey, slow down, whatever." I think they followed him home. They, you know, he lives somewhere in downtown area, so he's in fear. I mean, I I don't even know how many complaints I've gotten over the years because it's been numerous. Another thing is I'm on the Riverwalk and I see the the the officers that are patrolling on the bikes. Not once have I ever seen them harass, bother. you're just riding the bikes up and down, just keeping an eye on things. Then you have the security and the golf carts and whatnot. Um, but I've never had an issue with that. I am supportive of this because of the I've must have received at least a hundred complaints from people. Then I've witnessed it myself more than once and I'm thinking this is bad. Council member Carlson brought up a few good points. We should get status updates, you know, to what's being done so we know. Um, I'm glad that one of the officers mentioned we're going to educate the public. You know, you have 30 days to tell people, "Hey, slow down. Hey, you know, we're going to start ticketing." Uh, I think I heard the number like 70 $75. You know, don't you don't need to take these people to jail and give them an arrest record. But at the very least, I don't want somebody getting hurt because it's city property. We're going to get sued. It's a liability. Someone's going to get hurt. again, you know, you get you get one head inj injury, you can kill somebody. I mean, that's I mean, they come at a rapid pace and you people can laugh and go, that's ridiculous. But once I've witnessed it, I said, "This is bad." And I want people to feel safe. That riverwalk gets very, very busy. When I go, I go as early as I can and I see a few people. But throughout the day, throughout the weekends, there's so many events out there. And it's not, oh well, when it's busy, when there's Riverfest, when there's trick-or-treating, you know, Halloween, you know, out there when it's full, they're gonna not going to come out there. They come out there when it's busy. I mean, it's not like, you know, certain hours. It's anytime. And the more people you have, the more risk is involved. So, thank you for bringing this up. Again, we need to monitor the situation and see, you know, see in a few months if it's working, how many people have been educated, you know, and see if we can make a dent in this. But I've I've received over 5 years of complaints. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councilman Vieira. Then Councilwoman Herk. >> Yes. Thank you very much. So, you know, my thoughts on this are are are very simple, which is we're getting um a lot of reports uh of this issue and we can't tell the public. Um we're not going to do anything. Uh that's the major thing. I I I think there is a reasonable path forward which is says that we passed this ordinance. And again, we have status updates on potential inadvertent excesses that could come from a policy. Uh, and I think we're all very very sensitive to that. Um, I I I think that by saying essentially we're not going to pass anything to address this concern. Um, that's wrong. That's that's very very wrong. Um, I I remember man about two years ago I was in Eore City. Uh we were having dinner and coming back and there was uh I don't know if it's a biker gang or whatever it was but there were a bunch of folks about 20 folks and on bikes going up in in 7th Avenue and I was driving one way and there were about 10 bikes coming up against my car and it was very very scary. I it's funny I forgot about that until uh today ironically. So having updates on it in terms of inadvertent results of this policy I think are very very important. sometimes policies are passed um which have costic effects which we have to be aware of. I think of the um the so-called crime-free housing program. I I was here for that um and I opposed that early on and I spoke to police officers about that. I remember being at a PBA uh police memorial uh event at Hunters Green and I asked some officers about it and one told me I didn't sign up for policies like this for the crimefree housing law. This is not such a policy. This is the stuff that people sign up to come police officers for because you're protecting the public. So why wouldn't we protect the public? And again, if there are inadvertent results of this, we want to know. And I think inquiries quarterly, annually, whatever it may be, that for me is reasonable. I'm fine with that because again, if we abdicate our responsibility inadvertently on this and essentially do nothing, I think that would be very, very misguided. So just my thoughts. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Herz. >> Thank you. Um, to me, this is exactly the same thing as the EORE curfew. We are we are throwing the baby out with bath water. First of all, this policy will not help you if your if your car is surrounded because this is only for um >> multimotal trails, >> multimodal trails. So, that's number one. Um, number two, I am the only person on this council that cycles at all. And I had a lot of of what I thought were productive conversations. None of my suggestions were seriously considered or just flat out said, "No, we're not going to do that." So, my first one was um $75 for a first offense ticket is 10 hours of minimum wage work. And that's what we're doing. We're talking about teenagers. 10 hours of minimum a wage work for teenagers. Um I wanted a community service program and they said that was too hard. But I think community service program is absolutely what we need for things like this because money is something that people can pay. Time is something you have to spend. like it. If you're spending your time and, you know, 30 hours of community service instead, to me, that's a much more meaningful and uh much more meaningful punishment and makes you think. But just slapping folks with a $75 fine and only 30 days to educate, I have a problem with. My other issue is I want it to be equal. I as a cyclist on the Riverwalk have giant problems with people walking. They walk five a breast constantly and they don't want to move for you. Even though I'm going the speed, even though I'm dinging my bell and I say, "On your left," everybody they turn around and they look at you dirty and they're like, "I don't want to move." So I said, "Okay, well then why don't we have it for pedestrians as well if pedestrians should only walk two a breast?" I thought that was very reasonable. They told me no. So for me, this isn't just this. It's it's if you want to do something on the riverwalk, it needs to be for everybody. We need to say to walk to a breast for walking. I I think that's very reasonable. I think finding uh another way to to teach and we're really talking a lot about young people here. Teaching young people not to do something. Money isn't going to help that. My other issue is [clears throat] we have a speed limit already. I agree. I do believe we should move it down to 10 miles an hour, but I want to know how that's being enforced now. If we have a we have a very clear 15 mph rule on the Riverwalk, how many tickets have we given out? How often does that work? Because I agree those e ebikes are awful. Let's let's legislate that and let's fix that. But I want to know how we actually go about uh ticketing folks for for for running for for driving faster than that. So, so these are the these are the concerns I brought which I thought were very valid concerns and no one no one wanted to consider them. And so, so that's where I'm going to be on this. I will not vote for it currently as it is, but I will vote for it if if it includes pedestrians having to walk to a breast and it also includes um some type of community service or a much much more reduced fee of maybe $20 because I don't want kids because what happens if it happens twice? If you're a teenager, first of all, you're not smart. I mean, bless their souls, they are not ready. They just aren't. they'll make a mistake more than once. And I don't want that to be something where they can't get a driver's license when they turn 16, that they can't get a job because they have all of these these these marks against them. I want to make it low enough if we are going to have a ticket that it's reasonable for for young people to pay and so that they aren't in a system one way or the other. And I know we're not going to give them we're not going to arrest them or anything like that, but but it has to be a very low fine. So that and then you know after like the second or third fine, okay, then we start jacking it up. But but but we are really talking mostly about teenagers here. So I want everyone to think about that. I have no problem with idea overall, but I really believe it needs more modification. >> I'll take my opportunity to speak. I I don't disagree with Did you want to speak on that? >> No, I I I thought I had a reason, but go ahead. >> Um I don't disagree, Councilwoman Herte, but I what what I keep hearing when I when I was hearing you talk is that it's the search of don't let the cir search of perfection get in the way with actually doing something. And I think that and I because I agree that where we're going is probably a more perfect world, but you have to start somewhere and we can whatifs it to death. But go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, I mean, yes, but what I'm saying is simple things. >> Yeah, but I mean, but I I think >> $75 is crazy. >> Well, I think that's But like your issue about um doing community service, I mean, that's a whole pro. I mean, that's a that's a big can of worms. >> Sure. Which is why I said $20 is fine. >> Well, I mean, we council, go ahead. >> Um, so a few things. um as someone who um you know lived during um biking while black and had some family members um that had to deal with that. Um it you know that I have some questions and when we had the briefing we did you know I did um I did bring some of them up and just some of my concerns. Um, so one of the questions that I asked was, you know, when when I see the word wheelies, you know, I'm specifically I'm thinking about kids. Um, as someone, you know, that work work with kids and, you know, I've had kids that would come to my program on a bike. Um, and so I'm I'm I do think that we should do something. Um, but I'm very I'm very hesitant. Um because like I was like I said during our briefing um you know I don't want to criminal criminalize our kids riding their bikes. Um and a lot of times it is a lot of kids. I've seen the kids riding their bikes too. Um so I'm I'm I'm hesitant. I agree with a lot of the sentiments um that uh Councilman Herk made. Um just you know some of my initial you know thoughts. Um, do we already have signs on the trails already that say no, you know, speed limit or no, you know, groups or two a breast? We don't have any of those signs. >> Okay. >> Because we don't have we don't have an ordinance yet. That's >> right. We don't have an ordinance that would address that right now. >> Okay. What they have is the speed limit sign on the Riverwalk. >> Okay. Um, and then also I know that, you know, we talked about, you know, doing the education campaign, you know, after, but has there been any type of education campaign maybe prior to this? Maybe some kind of just like outreach to educate people more before um, you know, going straight to fines. Um, >> can I respond real quick on that? And that's that's kind of the problem we run into. >> We can't educate them on nothing. >> Right now, we don't have anything in place. >> So, [snorts] we can't teach them. We can't tell them, "No, you can't do this. No, you can't do that. No, you can't have wheelies. No, you can't, you know, dominate the uh roadway because we don't have any way to enforce that. And we we don't have authority to if we don't have a law in place on it. So, that's why we're here today. I'm been um I do I'm interested to hear I know this is going to go for second reading to hear from um to hear from the public um but just my you know initial thoughts I just I feel like you know especially people who live during that time and you know it it it brings back um you know it brings back some of those memories. So I just I do think that we have to do something um I do agree with that. Um but how we go about doing that and making sure that we are not um you know that we're we're not creating a system where you know now kids cannot ride their bikes or they're being fined or or you know cited and then you know there's effects after that. So that's that's where my hesitation comes. So, I would ask if we could really consider uh maybe some of the, you know, thoughts that Councilman Herzek had or if we can sit down, you know, talk again about some different strategies just to be sure that we're we want we talk about kids aren't outside. We want them to be outside and but again, I understand the importance of doing something about it. I don't disagree with that, but I think how we do it, I think, is really important. And I'm, you know, kids kids are my soft spot, so I want to be sure they're they're 16. They're just out doing things. >> Now, one thing to note, and I think the officers would back me up on this, a lot of folks we're talking about are not kids. Is that would be accurate, wouldn't it? >> So, a lot of these people are are not kids. There are kids, but that's not the majority of what we're talking about. Even >> the stunt bicyclists and and wheelie folks, I mean, we know most of the cyclists are adults. Um, we, you know, the groups you see riding around. So, it's not a huge group of children that we're talking about. And um if I can take take one second, Councilwoman Herk, I did listen to because we did sit down a couple times >> and um if you notice, I I added that uh 386 in width >> pro prohibition that we talked about to address, you know, having the larger profile vehicles on there. So that's in here. And um but >> the pedestrians aren't >> pedestrians aren't in here because here and here's why. You know, just from a legal perspective, we have to have a reasonable basis for anything we do. >> We've received complaints about bicyclists. We know that's a problem. We've observed them, so we have a reasonable um basis behind putting an ordinance together to address that. We don't have the same for pedestrians. We don't have folks telling us. I mean, you you have said that >> every single time if >> I No, I said you have said that, but as compared to the complaints we're getting about bicyclists, it's a thousand to1, maybe even more than that. So, that's the problem when we have to have that reasonable basis in order to pass an >> ordinance. But to me, it's a fairness issue. Anyway, it is it is uh council member Vieiera's turn. >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, question for you, Mr. Brody. Um, Councilman Herac brought up the issue of some sort of a progressive um, you know, going higher scale on um, on penalties. I think that's reasonable. We could start off at 20 then perhaps go up to 75. Is there some sort of legal or major policy issue with TPD or that would be unwise? >> This is why we have Mike Smith from uh, TPD legal here for us. >> Good afternoon, Mike Schmidt. Um, I since originally when I started in 2013, I served as municipal prosecutor. So, I'm very familiar with our different fine system and things like that. Uh, currently under our code 23.5-5 is what sets out the uh different fine amounts that we have for civil citations. We have four classes of fines right now. Class one fines are a violation of $75. Uh, class two goes up to 150. Class three is uh three 3000 and then class 4 is 450. So it can go up to $500 for a civil citation. Uh these are essentially like a parking ticket in some way because what happens is it once you get a fine uh you get issued a ticket. The ticket goes to county court. A county court judge can give you as long as you need to pay. They can give you a payment plan. Um, so I've been in there numerous times and I've seen county courts give 180 days for someone to pay something and on a $75 citation, but $75 is the lowest fine amount that we currently have set in our designated schedule of fines. And the reason it's important to stick to the fine schedules is those all get uploaded into our uh database for the violations so that the vendor which we currently use is a system uh called tracks and the officers use that system and it populates the fine amount based on the class level. So I mean while in concept it could be done but in reality 23.5 sets out the different class levels and those are supposed to be followed. So that's what we do. We try to keep these uniform, concise, consistent uh based on the fine schedules that we currently have set out through city council. >> Yeah and I was going to say that. So number one you said in concept that I mean are are hands likely tied from going under? I mean, now we're talking I mean, no, your hands are not tied is the answer. No, they're not tied. It makes it more difficult administratively, but can can anything can something be done? Yes. >> So, in other words, so there there's two issues here, which is Councilwoman Herac talked about community service. I bet you that the objection to that was because of the administration or compliance with it. I I understand that. And doing a first time at $25, let's say, or $20, and then going up to 75, I understand that there would be some more administrative work for people. I'm very respectful of that. But I think the juice is worth the squeeze on this. I do because $75, if we are dealing with a young person, that is that is a lot of money. By the way, maybe 25 bucks is a is a lot, right? I I worked at Wendy's for $4.25 when I was a kid. Who knows? But um but I'm willing to support that. I do think the juice is worth the squeeze. And if we can do it legally, 100% for the first time. Um because again, we should pass something with teeth, something that's going to make a difference in these areas, but I do think that we should look at taming the potential excesses of it. And I do think that that scale that that Councilman Herzac talked about that I'm willing to support is reasonable. I'm all for that. So, in an effort to move this along a little bit, I know people want to talk to more, but is there consensus that we to reduce this to $25? And could you think we I'm sorry, $20. Would there be support for that to move this along >> and then up to 75 for second offense? >> You want to do 255075? So, it's just >> 20 20 30 50 75 >> I have more comments. >> I mean, do we need do we need any more comments on this or >> Yeah, I have a comment. >> I spoke once. Okay. Okay. I just I I'm I'm just trying to get us out of here by six o'clock. So that's >> Yeah. I'm I'm quick. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Same here. >> Is there is there is there kind of Do we have consensus on the fine schedule? >> Mr. Shelby. >> Well, Martin Shelby, city council attorney. Just a reminder, your policy is to take public comment at first. >> Oh, I I understand. No, I understand >> because that might >> we're getting I'm just saying but before we got public comment, I want to say if to to guide this along if we're going to do get reach consensus on this. I didn't ask for a vote. I asked for consensus. >> I have other suggestions if we're going to do that today. I think we should >> Well, how about we have a motion to continue this then? >> If you want to do that, if you have if you want to rework this, >> may Mr. Chair. >> Yes, M. >> This is first reading so we can pass something on first reading and then just to at least get the ball rolling because we have people here, we have officers here and attorneys here. I think we do have some consensus. Again, I'm all for 2075 or 20 whatever. I'm I'm good with that. >> Okay. So, let's let's let's think about this for a moment. Further discussion. Councilman Carlson, then Councilwoman Young, and then Council M. Oh, you >> then it's me and then it's her. >> Okay. Counciloman. >> Okay. So, regarding Councilman Carlson. >> Oh, I thought you're correct. >> This is what happens when you can't leave the D for a minute. >> Yeah. Then then >> Councilman Carlson uh just clarifying question. It says city parks um Beayore uh is included. >> Oh, absolutely. >> Okay. Because that's one of the main areas I've heard of complaints. Um I share the concern that um council member Herk has about uh teenagers that you know, one of the one of the big things about biking while black was that uh kids when they grew up if they threw the ticket away, they might not be able to get a driver's license and a and a job. And we need to make sure of that. A question is is is there a formal warning as the first time? >> Well, the way this will work is again the first 30 days there won't be any citation at all. There'll just be education. There'll just be inform them that there's a new ordinance in place. After that, >> that could be enough. >> No, there's not a process. There's not a process for a warning first. It >> does our system enable a warning at all? >> Discretion. because even if it's a $20 fine, if the kid throws it away and and throws away two or three of them, then they won't be able to get driver's license right? >> Um Mike Schmidt again. Uh yeah, absolutely. Officers always have the discretion to provide warnings. In fact, our system that we use for the citations in these systems has a warning uh option and it's frequently used. I was looking at the stats earlier and I think um I mean out of like uh if there was approximately I'm just trying to remember off the recollection but of I think of 700 for example bike uh uh offenses I think 500 plus >> I don't know if it's possible to just add that as a line into the ordinance but but to say f that you know first I don't know how you ID somebody who's underage >> that's that is the problem it gets get so it's best to I mean it gets very complicated to know whether or not somebody's >> doesn't have to be an age thing. It could just be a warning for everyone for sure. >> Yeah, I'm not talking about I'm not talking about age there, but but if somebody doesn't have an ID, I don't know how you would track if they've gotten a warning before. So, the first time they would get a warning if if somebody has driver's license and you'd be able to track it in the system. If they don't, I don't know how you do that, but I I would rather have a a formal warning process. The other thing is that um this kind of goes back to the discussion we had a few years ago on skateboards where somebody was trying to ban that and several of us who used to skateboard said no, we don't want to do that. Um I'm not against kids doing wheelies. I've never heard a complaint just about kids doing wheelies. It's the groups of kids that are intimidating people by doing wheelies. And I wonder if there's a way to tighten the language to say it's not if a single kid is doing a wheelie, I don't think they should get a ticket for that. But if if a group of people are doing it or even one or two kids are doing it or adults are doing it in in an intimidating way, uh like the complaints we've heard, they're going up to people and doing it in front of them. The the intimidation is the thing that I think they should get tickets for. Um, the last thing I'll say is that >> um I I would rather I would rather have a continuence by the way to address some of the issues. But the last thing I want to say is that the [clears throat] back to biking while black, the justice department did condemn the city of Tampa for that and I want to make sure and they condemned us for um for renting while black and I want to make sure that we don't get condemned again. And again, it was not the police officer's fault. It was a policy made at the top. But I want to I want to point out that Chief Burkhall has been very responsive and all of his team have been very responsive on this. They created a task force to address the the groups of people that that were on bicycles. And the constituents really appreciate that. And the and a difference now between between now and the biking while black time is during biking while black sometimes they would pull kids over because they didn't have lights on their bicycles. Now the police for the last seven years at least the police officers give out free lights to kids who don't have them. And so there's a huge difference in approach now. And that that's a difference in the administration because I think that as I've talked to police officers, they would much rather give a kid a free light so they can be be safe in the neighborhood than rather than give them a ticket if they're not doing anything else that's dangerous. Thank you. >> Okay. So I mean I'm I'm I know but I'm watching I'm watching the sentiment of this council and I see I don't see more than two of us that are firmly committed to voting on this for tonight or to this afternoon. >> I just have a suggestion. >> Okay. and he needs to >> I'll be quick. I'll be quick. >> Councilman suggestion comment. So two weeks after I got my driver's license when I was 16 years old, I got a speeding ticket February 2001 on Uclid and Del Mabry. It was $158. I cried to the cop. Nobody felt sorry for me. And I told my parents and my punishment was good. You're going to pay for it. $158 when I was making like 40 bucks, 50 bucks a week back then was all the money in the world. number one. So that taught me a lesson where I didn't get a speeding ticket for, I don't know, 10 years or something after that. Second, in regards to the people that walk in fours all the way across, whatever, several people have suggested to me, why don't you put arrows on the riverwalk, you know, this way and that way? Because psychologically, psychologically, and I would follow this, you would say like you're driving. You walk on the right, you walk at least there's a pathway because the way it looks like now, it's a free-for-all. You can go this way, that way, go across, you know, not sight the people that are walking in for, but the arrows might be helpful where people go, "Okay, we know somebody's going to come the other way. Mind the gap kind of thing." So that's it. Those are all my comments. >> That's a great suggestion. And even better would just be a line down the middle. That's pretty much how almost every >> everything is done. So I have a couple of suggestions with this. First, I'd like the the education to be 90 days instead of 30 days because 30 days is not enough time really to hit the people it needs to hit. And then the thing that I don't like about this that I think seems to be what I hear from people is the bigger concern also is that groups of cyclists surrounding cars and not riding too a breast on the road. So if we don't already have rules for that, is there a way we can put rules for that in this? So that's what we did is we took chapter 316 uh which has biking regulations. We took those biking regulations and pretty much copied most of those into this. >> Okay. So we already have those rules. >> There already is a rule that requires to a breast on the roadway. >> Okay, that's what I thought. But um and then I I do like the 10 m an hour. Um so I think that's really good and I appreciate the rest. But uh for me the 90 days and the $20 fines. Um, thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> If I mean, if if >> this will be it from staff, >> this will be very quick. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, if the concerns are the 90 days and $20, I think we can address that in the interim period between first reading and second reading and get this in place because I think that's the concern is get this in place, especially with the holiday season coming up to have these rules in place and have let TBD have some kind of um enforcement authority just to start this education campaign because we can't start the education campaign until an ordinance is in place. Counciloman Herek. >> Um I'm I'm fine with that. The only thing I would ask between first and second reading, at least for me personally, is a is a um is a like personal um meeting, just a little update. And I think maybe the rest of us might. I mean, I don't know. I want one. I don't I can't speak for others. It sounds like Miss Young also wants one. >> I will tell each one of you. >> No, but I think we we want to put some of those safeguards in that you all talked about. And so the purpose of briefing us is not just to brief us to make modifications between first and second. We we I think the consensus is we don't want to repeat by black for sure. We don't want to we don't want to have any kind of discrim. >> So can I get can I can I get a >> motion to but take comment. >> I know we need to get public comment >> but the problem here is that it's there's it's already difficult to because we have to change the entire code section. That's why I think a continuence. >> I I agree. I'm I'm at this point because because of the co we're going to have to modify a whole different code section. That's the that is the the fines and that's going to take time as well. >> So under 23.5-5, we suggested it be added into table one, what we could do is make a uh subparagraph in there that says specifically for this ordinance, it defined shall be XYZ. So we can address that. We can accomplish that without modifying the other. Okay. >> We can we can line item this one out essentially as a unique circumstance. >> I will go I will go with the the the >> first and second. >> Yeah. Because here's the thing. We we already just had a second reading where it turned into a first reading again. If we have to do that, we have to do that. >> Okay. Um so that is concludes. I'm going to go to public comment unless there's any other comments and then we can make the modifications when we read this. Uh, anybody wish to speak to this item? Line up behind Stephanie Pointer on the wall. Stephanie Pointer, go ahead. Start with your name, please. >> My name is Stephanie Pointer. I taught kids for 18 years of my life, mostly middle schoolers. And then I taught at JobCore. 18 to 24 year old high school dropouts in between DC, Baltimore, and Annapolis. Their frontal loes are not fully developed until they're 25 years old. Remember that. Remember that. It takes a while. Um, I my big thing is warnings first. And I don't have a problem in the world with uh with uh community service because they can do it at school, they can do it in neighborhood meetings, they can do it in lots and lots of places and they know how to do it, especially if they're already in high school because they have to do it for Bright Futures if they want to get anywhere. Um, I I really $75 is a lot of money. Not at my house. It's not at my house, but it is for a lot of folks. And and you can't just wash that to the back of the room. Um I I just kids have to learn and you can't start out by smacking their hand because you're not going to get anywhere with them. And I what what I thought was very interesting was a lady from the riverwalk this morning said this is just going to match the state statutes. Where the hell are the state statues? And what I'm also concerned about is I hear 7th Avenue, all the TPD officers are standing by the 7-Eleven. Then I hear, oh, all the police officers are together. They're not interacting much with these folks. And let me tell you something. I would walk into the pack of all of them together because I don't have a lick of home training. I don't have a lick of sense. I'm the lady who took a whole bus full of kids to the DMV every single week by myself and I never had an issue because I had expectations. And if we're not teaching those expectations now, you it doesn't you don't have to write a warning. You don't have to give somebody a ticket. It doesn't have to be against the law to have a conversation with a child or even a young adult and say this is why you shouldn't do this. But my biggest concern here is where can they do it? They can't do it in the streets. It's They're going to get dead. Okay, this is on the safe place. And there are signs on Manhattan along the um trail on Manhattan. I don't remember what they said. It's been a long time ago since I've seen them. I agree with one way or the other. And they do say something about one one group stays to one side, one group stays the other side, but I'm just kind of confused at how this went from zero to 75 bucks a pop. That's not fair. These kids are outside. THEY'RE NOT SITTING at home in front of a freaking computer. They're not sitting on their phone. They are outside moving around. We've got to figure out how to corral that. And two parks in a city this side is despicable. It's shameful that we don't have more places for kids to go and do this. I had a man tell me this morning that he got arrested when he was 11 for riding his bike coming home from a teen party. A teen party that was put on at a church. So, don't tell me it doesn't happen. Do you want to speak to this item? >> Um, Steve Molini, I just want to speak to you from personal experience. [clears throat] Um, and it doesn't have to do with trails, it has to do with public rides away. And and I was riding on Davis Island when this group of probably 40 or 50 young people, they were not kids, they were young people, they were probably 18, 20, maybe maybe older. and they decided that they were going to block all of East Davis all the way out to the airport. They intimidated the drivers. They they forced them to pull over. These were what I what I what I saw was moms with soccer kids or baseball kids, forced them off the road, and they tried [clears throat] to force me off the road and I rode right through the middle of them and said, "Touch me. Go ahead. Touch me." and and I got to the end of the road down near uh near [clears throat] where the commercial center is and there were two police officers there and I said, "Hey, these these people are out here all over the place. Look at uh YouTube on Davis Island bike riding and you'll see it. It's epidemic and it's distracting and it's and it's destructive." >> [clears throat] >> Um, I'm not saying that they all should be punished, but you need to give these law enforcement officers some tools, some kind of tools to to try to enforce this because they don't have them. When I stopped with the officers, they said, "We can't do anything about it." And and so I guess it's evolved to eventually the officers have some tools where they can stop it. But these groups, they go to Soho, they block [clears throat] the traffic there. They go to Davis over to uh Del Mabberry over by the Publix and they ride north up there and they they stop the traffic up there. And uh law enforcement has finally had some tools. I'm not sure exactly what they are. Um but if you can't go to a park and you can't enjoy yourself because the bikes you get run over, where are you going to go? And I mean, I agree with Stephanie. You know, we need to have some other alternatives, but those parks are way up north and outside in the county. You know, the lower 48, maybe that's an ideal location for something to have some trails down there, uh, some bike riding trails. But it it is a big problem and it is unsafe and it causes other people to have serious other accidents and problems. I don't know if you remember this, but there was a woman in Hyde Park that that had to be rescued by the police because she was so intimidated and in tears because she could not get her kids and she had her kids in the car, couldn't get them home. So anyway, it is a problem. Thank you. >> So, can I get a motion to close? >> No, I have something I want to say. >> Councilwoman, >> I just want to make a point that Mr. Molini's what he's talking about is completely separate. And I also agree that we need to find a way to to figure out what's going on on on the street. Like if there's a way with drivers that we can because if we don't have laws for that, we need to have laws for that. Um so I think we're looking that those are two separate issues and I think we need to find answers for both of them. This is just simply for um multi-use trails in parks. Correct. >> Correct. Is that right? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. And is there anything we can do about the streets? >> The streets regulated by state statute. So, we have those rules in place, what's in the statute. Um, and that's why we brought this forward because we want to try to line them and provide a few extra protections for our multimmobile trails, specifically Riverwalk and Beayshore Boulevard. >> But that's not my question. My question is about the streets. >> Yeah. No, no, that's state statute. And um >> so so we can't make that any more stringent on our streets. >> Just have to enforce it. >> Yeah. >> But that but that's what he's saying. He was saying that he ran into the officers in that very instance and it's and he said that the officers weren't able to do anything and that's the issue. So >> okay not not we're here to talk about >> not get into the statute right now but that's the statute does have protections in place. Yeah, let's let's let's move on because this is just about this is limited to the item that we're before us today is about beayhore riverwalk and trail multimmodal trails. >> Okay. So, can I get a motion to close and then we can move? We have a motion to close from Councilman Vieira, second from Councilman Essco. All those in favor say I. >> I opposed. Okay. What is the will of council? We can I see two things happening here. We could continue this to February 5th which is open. Or if you would like to move this today with amendments because I don't see that there's four votes to as is. We can move this with amendments. What is the will of council? >> May I? >> Yes. >> I suggest that we move it today. We're going to have second reading to have another bite at the apple. We can make the changes now. February 5th, folks. We're in November. I mean that's three months away. >> Okay. So, what I'm hearing is that there's is there is there a will to move this with the consideration of the 90-day education period and then the amended fines? Is that the issue? >> Yeah. >> Councilwoman Herzek, would you like to define your wish for that? [clears throat] >> Um, I think $20 and uh then I I'm fine with 50 and 75. I mean, >> you don't want to do 25 just >> Sure. Then fine. 25 50 75. >> Okay. So we So what I'm hearing is there is a will to move this ordinance today with the amendment of a 90-day education period >> and all the other things you said were signage and all and then amend the fine schedule to 2550 and 75. >> Can we also formalize the the warning though? >> Yeah. Oh yeah. Um two warnings uh se 25 or one warning. One warning two. >> Well, there's not going to be any way of tracking this. I mean there's these if if they're under they don't have driver's license. So, I think that would be we could still ask them, >> but here's the thing. It doesn't matter if they have a driver's license. If they if they get a fine, they're going to have to give some sort of identification. So, so I mean a warning generally when I've been I mean, >> if you take you've been warned once, you've been warned. >> I mean, you know, if you know that there's a law, you know there's a penalty involved with the law, they've been warned once. So, I I would like to see this moved with those two between first and reckon with those two. I mean, is there anybody that would >> with a single warning? you adding the warning was fine. >> Okay. Uh who would like to read this? >> Okay. Council >> Mad Council, you had to say something. >> Um just for the um for the public outreach. >> Um I would ask that you all really like go all out for the public outreach um down to their schools, their nonprofits, you know, bike stores if you find groups um you know, bikers right now. so that this get so that um everyone is aware that this is happening. Um because I I really I I agree we have to do something but please let's make sure we do it the right way. >> Do you want to make that part of the motion >> to have extended public outreach? Yes. Be very specific. >> I'll I'll add it if you want. Can you if you agree with it or Okay. Councilman Essako, why don't you take a bite at this? read that with those three items and let's see if we go from there. >> If I can. >> Mr. Shelby, >> I'm Martin Shelby, city council attorney. With regard to the outreach, that is not necessarily part of the ordinance. Would it be a separate motion? >> That would not be part of I would assume that would not be part of the ordinance because I mean the ordinance really isn't sorry Carl Brody legal department. The ordinance is in place to provide requirements for the public to comply with. This would be separate. This would be something that we would just request the parks and recck department and the uh Tampa police to take the next step to go ahead and um do that and to do that outreach. >> Okay. So, Okay. So, council mask, would you please read this with the two amendments of the 90 days and then the fine schedule? >> I have an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. An ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida, amending city of Tampa code, chapter 16, article 3, section 16-53, regulation of vehicles within parks in chapter 23.5, section 25.5-5, schedule of violations and penalties. Set amendment providing prop prohibitions and fines for improper operation of authorized motorized and non-motorized vehicles on multi-purpose trails within city parks. Repealing repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith. providing for severability, providing an effective date with these changes between first and second reading. First, you have a warning, then it's a $25 fine, $50 fine, and finally a $75 fine. And for the first 90 days, that is when you educate the public. So, before you even get into the warnings for the first 90 days is, hey, you're not supposed to do that. Hey, we have new rules in place. Hey, you know, let people know for those first 90 days. Okay, we have a motion from Councilman Essco, a second from Councilman Vieira. Any further discussion on that motion? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. Opposed. Eyes have it. >> Oh, nice. Okay. >> Um I'm I can't vote for it until I've I've talked to my community, till I've reached out to the biking community and see if this is acceptable. >> So, this one's really hard for me. So, uh, you know what? I'm going to I'll vote yes, but I I I'm really going to reach out and and I'm and I'm going to get people to call you about um the pedestrians because I want that added between cir first and second reading. >> Okay. Is >> is that we okay with the unanimous vote on this? >> If I can, Mr. Chair, >> and we can change our votes next. Yeah, Martin Martin Shelby, city council attorney. I'd like to address what Councilman Carlson was just uh uh alluding to. Um this is a legislative matter. It's a policy decision. >> Correct. >> Um the purpose of having the two readings is to have a public hearing afterwards. Um so you have the opportunity for the community and the outreach and uh you are not bound by your voted first reading. In effect, when you do a first reading, technically what you're really doing is moving it to a second reading in a public hearing and an adoption hearing. So, it's just the process of of the two readings. >> Okay. Very good. So, that passes unanimously. Council I'll recognize council mo I know it's new business, but we'll uh recognize councilwoman Young to introduce her proposed motion. >> Call the vote. >> Motion carried unanimously. Will Miranda being absent? Second reading and adoption will be held on December 18th, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in City Council Chambers 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida 33602. Councilwoman Young, you have a motion. >> Um, so I'll motion for uh extended >> for step um >> I'm sorry to interrupt. >> It's okay. >> Forgive me if I do. >> It's okay. I want to make sure I get it right. >> Well, I what you said before was good, but now we have to put in the form of a motion that will show up in the minutes and which will go to the administration to implement. So, what you're going to be is you're going to be requesting of the administration and fill in the blank. >> Okay. >> Okay. We're going to be requesting staff to provide extended public outreach um for the new ordinance um including uh Hillsboro County Public Schools, nonprofits, um organizations, churches um >> shops, >> bikes, bike groups, biking shops, >> social media, >> social media, TV, flyers, [laughter] >> radio, radio, >> radio, >> what I think I think it's like in >> all all forms of of transport of communication. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes, sir. I I your guidance. >> Yes. We we are going to put this on the uh city website, TPD website. So, it'll be there, but it'll be in addition to all the other sites that you just uh requested. >> Yes, please. >> Skyrider. >> We have a motion from Councilwoman Young. Second from Councilwoman Herk. Mr. Shelby, you have anything you add? >> No, no, no. I'll do that offline. >> Okay, so we have a motion. We have a second. All those in favor say I. I oppose. The eyes have it unanimously. Councilwoman Hertech. Um, and then I um I know I've talked about doing this, but I'm going to ask my aid, Kelly Sharf, to come out and I want to schedule I want to I want to join y'all on the on the Riverwalk or wherever as a cyclist just so I can see it so we can talk more about it. And um I I I want to make this work. >> Okay, Councilman Mk, you had anything to add? I saw your light was on. >> No. >> Okay, sorry. >> Okay, are we ready to move on? >> Okay. Woohoo. >> Uh no, Mr. We should go to the items that we pulled right? >> Thank you. Yes. >> Yes, sir. Uh, for item 74, um, I I really do want to speak about this. I really, really do, but we're I don't want us to be here for an extended amount of time. So, what I propose is that we put it to the next available one and we cap it at 10 minutes. It would require waiver of the rules. This is not going to take long. I just What's it? Yeah, that's okay. We have a motion from Council Vieier to move item 74 to December 18th. A second for council. All those in favor with a 10-minute time restriction. >> Yes, sir. So, for Mr. Sudter um in parks and recreation, you are hereby released. Thank you. Thank you. >> No, because we have another parks. >> Okay. >> Well, for me, >> so for item 74, a motion for Councilman Ver, second for Councilman Escalo, moving item number 74 with 10-minute restriction. All those in favor say I. I oppose. Eyes have been asked. Thank you. Item 74 has been continued. Anybody else want to continue something or move it or just Oh, I have one other thing. Item number 70. Um, there will not be staff here that was posted as a requirement. There will be two public hearings subsequent to this, but staff. So, I have a motion to receive and file item 70. >> We have a motion counciloman her second council. All those in favor say I. I oppose. Eyes have it. Anything else? Anybody else would like to take off our agenda? >> Mr. Shelby, >> I'm sorry to interrupt, but um um this gentleman, I believe, is about to leave and you want this distributed to city council. >> Yes. >> Is this part This is part of a presentation you were going to make. >> 75. >> It's on 75. Um >> if you could step up to the microphone, sir. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, >> but your name, sir. >> Uh Luke Surak. >> And are you member of the public or part of the presentation? >> I'm a member of the public. >> Okay. And you and you're asking this to be distributed to city council? Yes. >> We have a motion to receive and file the documents associated with item 75. We have a motion from Councilwoman Herk, a second from >> Councilman Mask. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Eyes have it. When we get to item 75, we'll have that admended. Thank you. >> Yep. Just a reference. Thank you. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you so much. >> Okay, let's go to 24 and 20. What was it? 28. >> So, >> hold on one second, Mr. Shelby, >> Martin Shelby, city council attorney. Did you move all of those yet that did not require? >> I think my suggestion is there's probably members of staff and their big ticket items >> hanging by a thread. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Well, if we could just >> clerk, would you go through and the item items so we make sure we have them all right? >> 689 >> 68 69 and 71. We have a motion from Councilman Maskcalo, a second from Councilman Vier to move those three items. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Eyes have it. Thank you. >> 70 >> pres that one. Yeah, we just did that one. Mr. >> Chair, >> I had pulled item number 39. Um, can we just go ahead and receive and file that? >> Whoa, whoa, whoa. I had questions about that one, too. >> Okay. Okay. >> 39. >> No, I had questions about that. That's going to be after 24. >> Okay. This will be okay. 24 and 28. Go. Council council woman [laughter] council woman. Councilwoman also council woman her. >> Uh so so 24 and 28. Um we got uh uh some emails from um our city council budget analyst about this and I just want to that. So, first I have some questions about what is in this Gadston Park part of the plan. I we I pulled the um the appendix for the parks master plan and it's not specific as to what we want to um what the money is going to be used for. I can't match it. So, my first question is if someone is here from parks and wreck that could talk to me about um about what what projects are actually going to be done for this item. >> Is there somebody online from parks and >> no idea? >> Okay. Well, then that makes this easy. Uh so the [clears throat] give me a second. >> 24. >> Yes, I'm at 24. So, one of the things that that we were concerned about was the fact that this $1.1 million is coming out of a small neighborhood parks fund that actually doesn't have 2 million. It currently has three million because it has a little bit left over from last year. But the the concern is Julian Belain is not a small neighborhood park. Fixing the dock if given to us is not one of the priorities we're hearing about. We're hearing about other parks that haven't been touched in 15 years needing things. Julian Belain hasn't been open that long. So, personally, I have no problem with funding Gadston Park, but I still want to know what it's for because we can't find that information. But I would move to not support fixing the dock right now and moving that money toward a small neighborhood park. >> You said you don't want to fix the docks and you want to move it to a small neighborhood park. >> No. what's already in small neighborhood parks. Okay. So, I >> you wouldn't >> I wouldn't I don't want to take it out of that for this. Um to me, Julian Bel Lane is a large park and I don't I don't want to it's like robbing Peter to pay Paul and we need a lot of work with parks and wreck and I think what we have heard overall from this council the last few sessions is that when we get this FY25 budget left over that we want to spend it on parks. So I have heard that we do not that I I believe I asked if this is something that had to move right away today and from my understanding no I would prefer moving this to January at well maybe not January because of Gadston but I am concerned no one's here to talk about this today I have concerns I want to know what Gadston Park is I don't want to move money to Julian be lane when we have these other small parks that have been waiting years. So, let's entertain a motion to continue item. >> Wait, wait, wait. Let me I have a question sir. >> Well, yeah. Councilman, >> so how much of the 1.1 million is going to the Julian Bel Lane document? I have to ask you 350,000. >> So, the thing is that park was built and opened in 20 2018, so it's fairly new. And I know those docks are used and I see the people rowing all the time, but um Okay. No, I understand. Okay. So, so again, I want to be able to move the Gadston money, but I want to know where it's going. >> Councilman Vier, um, >> can we get that? >> Can we get that answered now? I mean, really quick. >> Is there anybody from parks and recck listening? >> Cuz I I mean, I you know, >> so how about this? Why don't we hold this till the end? And Miss Sharf, if you can find out and so she'll come to me and let me know when we have the answers to what that money is being spent on. >> So, we're going to hold We're going to hold it. >> That's 24 now. 28. >> If I can, Miss I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Mr. Shelby, >> before you go to 28, number 24. Ultimately, once you get your answers, it'll still require amending the resolution. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> 28. >> Um, well, and it may, it may not. We'll we'll see what the gas part. So, 28 is [clears throat] >> So, we're holding 24. 28 is again appropriating $320,000 from the parks and recck citywide maintenance and repair project to Lowry Park shoreline improvement project. And so my question for staff was do we have a I mean have we applied for a grant for these shoreline improvements because oftentimes we have grant money for this. My concern again is that parks and wrecks citywide maintenance and repair. I don't know how much um Miss Capesky, do we know how much money is in that budget or or Mr. O'Haro who's here to to to maybe help. >> Can I mention another thing? >> Well, and and I mean, if we have $350,000, that should go towards the um yellow jackets to be quite frank. >> There needs to be more transparency. But the other thing is that I'm all we need to go back and and maybe talk to Marty about this, but I think the administration is out of compliance on several positions, including the parks and wreck position, which been is because they've been open more than 90 days. We not having a director of some of these departments is is really um hurting our ability to move forward on many projects. >> I agree, Miss Kapesky. >> Hey, Ger Kapesky, city council budget analyst. Um, so there's approximately 850,000 in the maintenance um, >> of which I think they're requesting to move 350, right? >> 320. >> Okay. >> And and again, I I just want to know because it's such a small budget. $2 million is or I'm sorry, $800,000 is nothing. And we're moving over a third of that. And this very well may be a project that has to get done, but is it is it the priority? Um, so, so I am concerned. >> Uh, oh, good. We we have someone from, uh, parks and recck here. >> Uh, so, [clears throat] so again, I really would, if possible, I would like to postpone these until after we find out what's left over in the 25 budget because we have stated as a council multiple times that we want this to go to parks and wreck, but I just don't know how much money's there. >> Uh, Tony, are you um, able to speak to items? Let's let's start with 24. Are you able to speak to item 24 >> on Gadston Park? What's what is being done with that $800,000 >> initially design? >> So, we got to figure out the best use of the money. There's some drainage issues out there. There's some bathroom issues. >> Um I think there might be some support of a challenger league, but um if you do postpone, you might get some better information. I'm not the best first. I'm filling a seat. I'm trying to do the best I can to answer. >> Okay. Heard and noted. Thank you, Councilwoman Herte. >> And my other question is, um, we actually have a line item in the city's budget for ADA compliance. So, I'm curious why this is being taken out of the park's budget when it can also be taken out of ADA compliance budget. So, so I'd like to be able to talk about the balance there. >> All I keep hearing now is this should item should be continued for additional information. Item 24 and 28. I'm willing to listen to a motion to continue items 24 and 28. >> And and and I hate to I hate to move it to the new year, but I really want us to be able to talk about >> So, let's do it. >> Can I just say for the people who are interested in Gatsson Park, we're not trying to delay it. We're trying to make sure that that the city's going to spend on the things you want them to spend on. Yes. And ideally, the parks department would have some kind of meeting with the neighborhood down there, also our neighborhoods to talk to people about that. >> [clears throat] >> So, so I will say um January 8th just because it's the first one back. Uh and and obviously we want to get the Gadston Park stuff done as quickly as possible. So my motion is to move 24 and 28 to together. Um well, they can't be together because of their separate um money movements, but uh I I want to move that they they be moved to January 8th, 2026 to include a description of what's going on at Gadston Park to pull out the Julian B. Lane. I mean, I don't think anybody's going to disagree with me on that one. And then to find out if if there's money in the ADA budget to help maybe not the whole, but to help with the ADA compliant restrooms at Gadston Park. And I and I have an email right here regarding D8 complaint question. So yes. >> Okay. We have a motion from Councilwoman Hertech. We have a second from Councilman Matiscalo. This is for items 24 and 28 to continue both items with the proposed changes to January 8th, 2026. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. The eyes have it. Okay, we through that now. Um item number 39. This is >> Bill. >> We did we talk Mr. Chairman. Did you do 36? I don't know what happened. >> Uh yeah. >> Yeah, we already >> Thank Yeah. My I don't know I don't know if um Miss Glover's here, but the um there were some concerns raised about the processes at the convention center. I I I think we need to set it up as a um enterprise fund and um and have a a a sound P&L on it. As I look through the numbers, maybe others disagree with me, but as I look through the numbers, it's hard to see what the real revenues and expenses are in the convention center. And obviously, it's going to have a loss and we're going to have to look at the economic impact of it. But we need to put all the expenses in one place and all the revenues in one place so we know what it is because right now we're taking some from CRA and other places and we [clears throat] need to we need to know what the expenses are. But this looks like some of the in the audit it looks like some of the processes need to be fixed. Um I I think that's for this particular item. I think that's out of order. I think that would be new business if you were going to make that motion during new business. This is just referring is transmitting the audit audit to us asformational only to be received and filed. question, >> but I mean I think I think that may be a catalyst discussion for new business, but I think for this particular item in itself, >> I was I was mentioning that as backup backdrop to to the the question about the processes that were that were not um up to par. >> Christine Glover, I see that you're on air. Would you like to speak to item 39? >> Yeah, you're muted. Christine, you're muted. >> [clears throat] >> No, still muted. >> Is she selfmuted? >> Yeah, it's on your end. >> Let me go to Councilwoman Herzek. Councilwoman Hertch, you wanted to speak to this item. >> Um, so, so I've had the same questions, Council Member Carlson, about the convention center for quite some time. So, I I think that um we could accept this, but then maybe uh if you make a motion to have a to put this on one of our workshop dates to really discuss the possibility and and what we're doing, I would support that. >> I think that would be appropriate. >> I'll make a motion on new business and I'm not against it. Commission sitter. I just want the public wants to see all the information in one place so they know what the true cost is. >> Okay. So, we'll continue this discussion during new business. Can I get a motion to receive and file item 39? >> Second. We have a motion from Councilwoman Moscalo, second from Councilwoman Herk. All those in favor say I. >> I oppose. The eyes have it. Thank you, Christine. Sorry we weren't able to hear from you, but we're see if you can work on that because we're going to get back to in new business. We're going to have this item if you wanted to talk to something about Okay. Where are we at now? >> 72. >> Okay. 72. Let's talk storm water. I think we ought to say that we're at a maximum we're going to leave here by 8 o'clock. [laughter] >> You will not you're not going to see me pass this. >> No, we have an event to go to. Are you going? >> I have something else to do. >> Transgender Day of Remembrance at Rivercrest Park at 6:30. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Good afternoon. uh council un mobility storm water after uh backtoback storms last year uh board of county commissioners herald black vit to perform independent analysis of uh and present flooding experienced uh in the region as well as make initial recommendations of improvements that can be implemented in stormwater program and this effort started December last year and was complete ated uh early summer this year and the uh findings and recommendations were presented to the BOCC in July and recently presented to city council of temple terrorist and I just wanted to emphasize a couple of things. uh public engagement was a critical component of this assessment and a total of eight public meetings were conducted countywide between April and May and uh many residents many city residents and council members attended some of these meetings and sharing their firsthand experience. A second uh emphasize is uh this effort was fasttracked completed within six months and this is just initial step of many steps being planned or have started with that. We are very fortunate to have done here. John is a uh regional water resources lead of Black Beach and uh is a registered professional engineer and has more than 30 years of uh experience working for both public and private sectors. With that, I need over to John. >> Good afternoon, council members. I appreciate the opportunity to u give you a report of uh our post hurricane regional storm water assessment. and we have a slide deck associated with that. So I'll give it just a moment while it cues. Again, my name is John Dingis with Black & Beach Corporation and by way of an introduction and thank you for that Yuan. Appreciate that introduction. The the county commission's uh charge to us was to perform an independent storm water evaluation. Of course independent meant u that we were taking a fresh look at um what had happened as a result of the hurricanes but yet we were operating independent in the sense that u we were bringing our own analysis and evaluation to the table. So um with that we can move to the next slide or I can think I can do that here. >> Very good. So by way of um review of the objectives, our our objectives were to evaluate performance of the storm water systems across program areas, deter or determine what the needs are based on that and then develop findings and recommendations moving forward. So we did exactly that. All that had to be done against the backdrop of what was a record setting rainfall year in 2024. Um this slide really tells the story very well. This is one rain gauge in northeastern portion of Hillsboro County, but it similar rainfall patterns were observed across Hillsboro County in 2024. So you had a very wet season. There were multiple tropical storms were way above normal rainfall and then had a really catastrophic rainfall event that led to significant inland flooding all across Hillsboro County. The total 2024 rainfall was a new record since record started um at the Tampa International Airport. Over 80 inches of rain, which is 22% more than the the second highest rainfall total of year. So I hope that helps everybody understand the unprecedented nature of that flood event and it hit at a time when it things were completely saturated. Our approach to conducting that assessment and concept was to go get the data and in addition to collecting technical data have a robust public engagement process and stakeholder engagement which included um interviews with members of this council and that helped us form our database that we could use for that assessment. We then use that data to evaluate program components, develop key findings that came out of that, develop recommendations and then summarize those which I'll give you a very high level summary today. Uh for the interest of time, we did produce a summary of findings report and then a very detailed very large project report to go with it. Our data gathering was very comprehensive and I I will say that not only did we work collaboratively with the staff of Hillsboro County, but your staff as well were very helpful and instrumental in collaborating with us to provide all the the city data as well and that was very helpful for us. We did the same with the city of Plant City and Temple Terrace. We wanted to make sure we had all the information we needed to perform the assessment. So it was everything from spatial data reports. We did interviews, collected permits, photo thousands upon thousands of flood event photographs, storm water models, and we that really constituted the exhaustive nature of our of our data collection effort. To touch on the engagement piece just for a minute, u the neighborhood meetings I think were kind of an interesting component of our assessment. So, we did not just take our data and run into a into a room and spend months on end crunching it. We wanted to share our findings with the public, but then receive comment. So, we worked with Hillsboro County and opened up uh those public meetings as well as their engagement hub. We actually received a tremendous amount of public data that came in through the engagement hub in addition to the eight public meetings. So, you can see by these numbers, we had very good participation in that process. Um and we heard a lot of good comments. They were glad that we did that. Um, in one of the items we presented to the public, uh, we began to see trends emerging from the data of flood focus areas across Hillsboro County. Several of which actually are partially within the city of Tampa and within Hillsboro County. I will point out we did not uh try to highlight storm surge areas because we were looking at an inland flooding from rainfall event. That was what drove our analysis. Storm surge flooding is well documented and it it's was not part of our analysis simply because storm surge is already well established and there's flood zones where everybody knows that you have storm surge. So these flood focus areas helped us to really drill into where the um emerging problem areas were all across Hillsboro County and some like I mentioned in association with the city of Tampa. So when we put all that data together, our findings can be summarized as such. Um when it comes to flood modeling, we found that these predictive models of storm events really correlated very well to documented flood information. Um that is good that it validates the the floods. Um, and our recommendation from that was to continue updating those models to continue to refine the data and information that can be shared with members of the public. Coupled with that, the models produce information in the form of maps. We found uh very quite a few comments from the members of the public that hey I was not in a FEMA documented flood zone but I still had flooding either on my property or in some cases within my structure. What's going on? Well, it turns out the county um really has much more refined models that's based on better data and information. Our recommendations were that and they've already done this was to publish that additional data and make it fully available to members of the public. Okay. On the infrastructure side, uh we looked at their asset management program and we also included the city's all three municipal governments. We did pull that data in so we can get a feel for it and we saw common themes emerging from the analysis. So there's a public perception for example that ditches are not wellmaintained. Sometimes that's just because they don't look very nice. But um the ditches overall were in fair condition, in some cases good condition across the Hillsboro County and for the city of Tampa. Um but overall functioning quite well. Um in many cases though, they just needed some more maintenance. So that that was one of the big ones, ditches. The other one was pump stations. There's been a lot of conversation about pump stations and we find that they have been nearing the end of their design life and our recommendation to the county and I think it would be a similar theme for the city of Tampa is continue your program of renewing your infrastructure around pump stations. Um so that I know that's well underway and that's that's good that we can validate that recommendation. So, um, that will address many of those challenges moving forward with your ditches and pump stations. On the development standards front, we did take a look at development standards across Hillsboro County. One important concept to remember is you can't design storm water systems to handle the biggest storm you would ever see simply because it's not it's just not feasible economically or even technically. So you pick a level of service and the storm water design are based on those level of service criteria. U we did hear and see development review staff resource limitations. We all know this is a very busy area for development and so there there tends to be a crunch on development reviews and in addition so additional staffing levels can be a very important part of improving that program as well as standards sufficiency reviews on floodprone areas to see hey are the standards really where they need to be coupled with improved intergovernmental coordination because if you have different standards across jurisdictional boundaries then you can have a you can have inconsistent application And what that leads to is water doesn't necessarily see a political boundary, right? So I think that intergovernmental coordination is very important. Moving along on that theme, we did see um a rec opportunity for improved coordination which I believe is already underway. There are quarterly working group meetings, improved coordination between these entities that that are highlighted here um on this slide. So, um, consolidating functions, uh, we know that we talked to county staff about consolidating their functions to really focus in on storm water improvements and consider how coordination, for example, with FDOT could enhance their program and also coordinate with adjacent counties because the many of these wersheds, they're up the hill from Hillsboro County, if you will. So you have water flowing out of other counties into Hillsboro County and regional flood mitigation projects could be feasible in the future. They're not cheap, but they may need to be examined moving into the future. Public awareness and support u one one of our findings was that the detailed work program was there. It was in place but it had not been well conveyed to the residents. So we just there was not good understanding with the public of what projects were proposed, where they were proposed, where maintenance occurs. And so our recommendations was to enhance the public awareness campaigns and continue to develop a comprehensive communication strategy for those uh for the storm water program and for future resilience efforts. On the capital improvement front, we've noted that the county um similar to the city of Tampa has a it's a common theme. It's a very robust work plan for capital improvements. Our op our recommendations were to optimize prior project prioritization based on risk. Now, the reason for that, I'll give you an example. I'll speak to this. The five-year storm water capital improvements program for Hillsboro County is over $300 million. However, they have a funding gap of roughly 131 million. Here's Thank you. That's very helpful if you can see that. >> So, with that funding gap, we see that they've planned out more than they can actually, you know, have funding capacity for. >> CCTV, can you put the wolf projection up please? >> Yeah, this was from my my presentation to the board of county commissioners. So um I think you have a similar again similar theme that you have more capital improvements in your funding capacity will enable and so the prioritization of projects is very important and targeting your projects where you have the greatest flood risk because as you um as you can see from the slide we told the county our findings were based on their benefit cost analysis if they were to fully implement that capital improvements program they could potent potentially reduce flood damage by like $120 million. That's pretty significant, but it takes a lot of, you know, a lot of capital improvement cost to to get to that point. I'm not sure how I get back to the slide. >> CTV, can you put the presentation, but thank you. >> Thank you very much. I had one more conclusion slide. I can speak to it. you you can speak to it. Go ahead. >> Okay. Very good. >> It's not there, but CTV, it's a black. >> I have a hard copy. I can place it right here on overhead >> if it'd be helpful. >> Okay. How about the wolf? Go to go back to the wolf, please. Activate the wolf. [clears throat] That's a beautiful picture, but yeah, there we go. That's a better picture, actually. So in conclusion, we found that there was a robust and beneficial flood management program and it's providing significant benefit. That's a common theme across all the lo the local governments and the Hillsburg County here. U flood modeling and mapping regulation and capital improvements were key program strengths. Asset management including ditches and storm water pump station uh maintenance and improvement. Those were points of opportunities to uh continue improvements as well as inter agency coordination, public awareness. Those were opportunities for program improvement [clears throat] and alignment. Um the public outreach we conclude was very successful for the project and continue to enhance that outreach program. Um the program funding needs elevated consideration to fully implement the program improvements. That speaks to the funding gap that I was just mentioning on the prior slide. But remember, we had record flooding leading to that was caused by record-breaking rainfall. And those are very infrequent events, but they're very difficult to deal with. And finally, a majority of the assets were built um out there prior to regulation. So many there's a whole lot of systems in the ground right now that were built before the 1980s and they don't meet the current level service standards. So you got kind of got to keep in mind that um that rainfall event falls on all kinds of systems. So those that meet current standards and those that don't meet current standards and that's part of the the issues with flooding. Um so that that's the uh presentation. Thank you for the opportunity to give it today and thanks to staff for collaborating with us. Glad to answer any questions you might have. >> Now it's time for rapid fire. Perk Carlson Manuscalco. So my first [clears throat] question is about slide number seven in the flood focus area because I attended these meetings and the folks that went to those meetings clearly said that the peninsula of South Tampa has nothing on it and that was definitely not uh that was freshwater that was rainfall flooding and so I'm concerned that we don't have that here because I think that will hurt people you know looking for flood relief all those things. Why isn't that here? >> Well, we focused we had a scope of work that had to be approved by the county and spend their dollars focusing on predominantly the county's flood areas and that included focusing on areas that were both across political boundaries, right across coordinated across city and county where their flood zones were jointly across the the political boundary. So the details within the city of Tampa, the time and budget were not part of our scope to go into great detail within the city of Tampa. >> Okay. So this really wasn't >> a county driven. >> This is a county project. Correct. >> Yeah. So then my my other questions don't relate, but thank you very much because it seems like based on this that we that the city has done a great job overall predicting and planning. Um we're fixing those pump stations. We're doing all a lot of these things on this list already. So, um, I think this is just a nice way for us to feel confident in some of the things that we've done, although it's a good reminder of the things we have yet to do. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Carlson. Counciloman Carlson. >> Yeah. And um and just a reminder, anybody's watching, you you are working for the county, not the city, as you just said. And um but at [clears throat] the um at at the um public meeting uh one of the public meetings in South Tampa uh constituents came up to to your team and said what tell us what's happening in the city and this is what six months ago or so and your team said the city of Tampa has not shared us any any data with us yet. Um did you all uh you you just said that the city of Tampa did share data eventually but did you did you all have sufficient time to analyze the city data? We did and data collection started in December of last year when we first kicked the project off and actually continued almost all the way to completion because it took so much time. >> When you say data collection though, you didn't you all did it and I'm not I'm not trying to be tough on you. I'm just hitting you with the answers and they cut me off with time. So if I go fast and cut you off, I apologize. But that you all did not uh collect any original data. Correct. You didn't go out and analyze pumps or analyze ditches. You use the city's data. And so if the city's data was flawed, you all wouldn't have been able to check whether it was correct or not. >> That's correct. We collected all existing data. There was no time or budget to try to create new information. >> So if you say that the city has done a good job uh maintaining ditches, you're just you're you're you did not look at the ditches, you're just using the city data that said that they did a good job. >> Correct. We used their asset management data and analyzed it against performance indicators. We know for example in the um in the area around Pomacy of Pines the public has pulled um lots of public data on on that area and done analyses of the former analyses of that area and they've said that uh the two retention ponds there did not have up-to-date permits and had not been uh properly maintained. Did you all would you would your analysis have just relied on what other city provided or did in that case would you all had any separate analysis of that? Well, compliance analysis was beyond the scope of what we're trying to do. And if there was a compliance issue, we would hand that off to the regulatory entity to further investigate that. That came up several times during our analysis. So, we would have to solely rely on the data we received from the county and from the municipal government. >> So, on um on on level of service standard, as I looked it up, there's not I can't find like a set standard that across the board. Um considering now that a lot of communities use a 100redyear event. So now we've had Milton which is 11 in. What is the what what is the level of standard measure that you use? Did you use this the one that the city created or did you use one that from your background experience is is a set standard and is it different? Uh would the one south of Gandandy be different than the one in Palmyia Pines or in uh New Tampa? We we did not create any new level service standards. We simply looked at the county's existing level of service standards and compared that to the municipal governments to see are they consistent and are how are they being applied. So they were existing level of service standards and we did not recommend any new standards. We simply evaluated what was in place. >> So the the same thing you talked about public awareness that the that the that the city has a plan and the city might need to do a better job of making the public aware of it. But the folks that have looked through the plan in the neighborhoods and looked through the plans going back, especially in areas like Pomacy Pines, feel that it that the city does not have a sufficient plan or has chosen the wrong plans or set the wrong priorities. But you all you all just looked at what the city and I'm not asking this to be argument. I'm just asking clarify the public. You all did not look at it independently. You just looked at what the city said as a priority and and said, "Okay, you guys have priorities." Um, >> I think that's a fair characterization, right? Yeah, we took the data and assessed it based on our professional experience. >> I just a reminder that what I don't know if you remember when this was first discussed. This was it a cooperative agreement between the city. I remember what this is, but yeah, but but it only it only took like they were talking about the areas like what happened in Forest Hills where m water from the county flew flowed into the city. So that's why areas like uh councilwoman Young was talking about other areas in the city that why it's not identified in this report because it was outside of their scope. So policy was outside of their scope. >> I I understand that but but there were statements made about about validating what the city has said and I think we just need to clarify from the public that that they didn't do an independent >> but they wouldn't even look you wouldn't even look at the pumps and palm like internally in the middle middle of the city but if you look back you're just looking at those identified areas on that map. If you look back at the claims that were made, I mean, the statements that were made here, it it looks like they're endorsing what the city has said. And the and and and I'll jump ahead since I don't have time. Um, you know, the the the public does not does not trust or support for the most part what the city has claimed on storm water and in particular around the Palomia Pines area. They believe that a separate Palaceia Pines project should be done, not the one that goes down Howard. All the science and previous research seems to indicate that that's true. Um but again you that was not within your scope. So you're in it. The last thing I want to ask is um you talked about the the defic the the deficit of funding for the CIP for the county. Um there also seems to be that for the city. How is the county going to fund that? >> Well the to my knowledge it wasn't part of our scope to do a funding analysis. There's a separate rate study going on that will inform that process. So the countyy's undertaken that. As far as I know, it's still in the works. >> Okay. Does anybody else have anything else? Council >> Ver say um since just as a courtesy since Councilman Carlson had his district uh uh significantly flooded. I mean, would would it be appropriate if if he so wishes it to have an extra two minutes? I just >> I mean I I it went past it. I just I didn't call him out on it because I talked to >> Yeah. Go. Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah, two other quick questions the public asked me and these are just questions the public's asked me to ask. Um, one is is there is there a very detailed report that you all gave to the city and is it possible to add this to on base so that the public can see the detailed analysis? >> Yeah, right. We delivered to the county a key findings report which is kind of the executive summary and there's a very large report with all >> so maybe is it possible the clerk can get that and and we can put it on on base so the public can see it. And the second thing is the the um the county I think using your data has a very interactive website where people can look if somebody's trying to buy a house they can look and see uh whether it might flood or not. Um um Yuan do you do you know if the city is looking at doing something like that that similar to what the county has done? >> Uh yes uh you mobility stom water. uh actually that's our next uh presentation and PLA going to be giving uh a quarterly update on the master planning process as part of the process public engagement will be a critical component again once we have the flat risks identified we'll post all the maps >> so does anybody have any additional question for on this part of the presentation on this part of the presentation >> yes I mean on every yes if I may yeah so a couple of things I want to say thank you sir for your presentation your hard work I always remind people that people from the hurricane a year ago are not all right. They're not doing well. They're emotionally battered. They're economically battered. People are are are traumatized for what happened. I think we have to salute the bipartisan work that went into making this. Especially always want to salute count or county commissioner Harry Cohen and and county commissioner uh Christine Miller who you know represent areas Town and Country as well as North Tampa with Harry and with Commissioner Miller um East County that were really really battered. Uh I like what you said about the pump station program. I want I want to focus obviously on the North Tampa area with a zone X. It got flooded. There's a lot of different issues and I want to start with the idea that there's a difference between a single and a home run. Okay. Um that to say I if the issue is would they have flooded? Would North Tampa have flooded with proper pump pump maintenance with proper pump generators etc. I don't think that's a proper question to ask. I think the proper question to ask is the level of flooding, which is would flooding have been as bad in the Forest Hills, overlook Timberf Falls area had there been uh uh backup pump generators? That's going to be what my line of questioning is about. So my question is um because again there there are questions that that people in these communities want to have answered to the best that you can and I feel that if the questions can't be answered then we have to further make inquiries because if you were a welder or a public school teacher or a first responder you were a North Tampa and you lost everything you sure as hell would want answers because you pay your taxes and you want those answers. So my question is um you know there were statements made early on that um with generators it could have helped the situation out in Forest Hills. Those were statements that were made. So my question to you is sir, had there been proper backup generators and proper pump generators into North Tampa area would that have made any difference given again this was a once in a hundred years God willing right type of a storm Helen and Milton back to back the tragedy of all tragedies for our area but with that issue of some of these uh uh uh pump stations going out not having proper backup generators etc. Would proper backup generators had made any difference in the level of flooding that the North Tampa community sustained? >> Yeah, based on our assessment, the the pump stations and generator systems, their their design criteria was to help recover flooding, not prevent it. >> So, the benefit to having them operational would have been a little bit quicker recovery >> from the flood event. Um [clears throat] but we've we've learned very quickly examining all the information that the those systems were not designed to prevent the flooding from occurring in the first place. >> Now that's a that's a very fundamental design criterion that and policy consideration that affects funding that needs to be examined. >> So I cannot stand here and say it would have improved the flood condition if they were working simply because of the design criteria. So in other words, you're saying had the had the pumps had proper backup generators, they not necessarily would have improved the situation because the pumps themselves were never made to sustain such water that came down from Helina Milton back to back. Correct. So, in other words, would you agree with the idea that the city should invest in additional pump infrastructures in areas like Forest Hills and throughout the city of Tampa, like you said before, that can uh respond to such storms as we had in 2024. As I may have mentioned earlier, you have to look at level of service and you could examine the feasibility of doing exactly what you said and but the cost >> and where where do you move that much water and that really is it affordable and feasible to move that much water at one time. So, um it's not an easy question to answer, but it is one that that can be looked into for sure. >> Yeah. And I and I know when we talked about this maybe two months ago, that's what y'all had told me and I want to make sure that the public knows about that. That's very important. I I I also read that you indicated, please correct me if not you, but but Black & Beach had indicated that you don't believe that Hillsboro County has enough money set aside to address its needs with um with with storm water and hurricane related issues in the future. Is that true? >> Well, based on the capital improvements plan, we we saw the full >> value of the plan or the cost of the plan and the funding there there was a gap. So, the funding capacity did not reach that. We'd send that to the county commission. They're very aware of it. Yeah. And um it's a common theme that we saw um the projects planned exceed the funding capacity and it's there are decisions yet to be made about how to close that gap. >> And is the same true for the city of Tampa? >> Yes, that's my understanding. >> Okay, great. Thank you. And I also saw that Hillsboro County fees for storm water were in the lowest 25% of the state. >> Correct. >> Correct. How about us, city of Tampa? >> Off top of my head, sir. I'm sorry. I don't remember. >> Yeah. Okay. And we can find out on that later. Um certainly. Yeah, we can find out on that later. Yeah. So, I mean, my my big issue, guys, is that we we do really need to look at robust solutions uh long-term on infrastructure for storm water and and and and resiliency with hurricanes and so forth because this can never happen again to these communities, whether it's our friends in South Tampa, whether it's North Tampa, whether it's our friends in Town and Country and Plant City out in the county. Um, you know, we have to do our best. We have the information now. We have the information. The issue is how are we going to respond? So, but thank you sir. I appreciate you. >> Thank you. >> You know the problem with that council is that at cost of what benefit you a costbenefit analysis is that how much money are you willing to spend to save x number of dollars on property? So, are you going to spend a billion dollars to save $100 million for the property? I mean that's I mean that really gets down to how that's and again like you say that I know we overuse that term 100 once in 100y year event when which we're having every five or six years 100y year events but it's you know at at what cost and who's paying that cost you know are we are we willing to tax those those very same people that are struggling to get by so it's it's it's it's a really complicated discussion. Yeah, it's a balance. Yeah. >> Yeah, exactly. It's It's complicated. We pick up the city of Tampa and move it to P County. >> Yeah. >> Council Ver Council Carlson. >> I'm getting tired. >> Yeah. And we need we need to we need to have authentic conversations. >> Yeah. >> With the with the public and >> not selling them on a project like was done with the South Hour project. That created it was not the engineering side of it. It's the selling of it that that made people distressful. And then they started looking at public records and they found that things that they would been told were not true and and and seeing the the lack of maintenance, the warnings that go back to 20, 30, no 40 years to the 1980s in uh in Palma Pines that the corner of Horatio and Habana was identified in like 1983 as a as a flooding area. Even though uh the people there say it's a flood zone X, it it's a bowl where the water pours in and the city knew it and and it and it has that solving that problem has nothing to do with the South Hour project. It was that was conceived and analyzed way before the South project was proposed and there were and their solutions the way the the the Anyway, there's all kinds of things the public's seen that we need a we need to trust the public that they understand what's going on, not sell them. I'm not talking to you. I'm talking in the general to but we we need a a full engagement to look at the the options and opportunities and and let the public come back to us to talk about this because um we we can't solve everything. One one last last question for you. Um I happened to run into Whit Rymer last night uh former sustainability guy in the city and I asked him I said what solutions are there for um storm surge? If you look at the GPS map, GIS map of South Tampa, almost everybody that was hit and flooded was by storm surge. And we're not even talking about that. He gave me one idea, which we'll talk about another time, but do you guys have any ideas? Is a county looking because you've got the Apollo Beach area and everything. What are there any ideas for storm for storm surge? >> That's a very difficult topic, council member. and um trying to get people out of harm's way is and that's I think that's the way it's managed currently. But in terms of preventing structural damage, you just I think you have to over time u upgrade structures to where they will be resistant to that damage, be more resilient. And that's really this the strategy we see being used all throughout the state of Florida and coastal areas. [snorts] Thank you. >> And so we continue to You have Do you have another presentation or is that Are we done? >> We do not. >> Okay. Good. Okay. Oh, we have We have a whole another person. We do. >> Very good. Okay. >> Thank you, John. Thank you. >> Good afternoon. Elaj with Applied Sciences. We're here on item I think it's the following item. It's the quarterly report for the basinwide uh the citywide basin planning effort. So, we're on 73 for those of you that are following home. >> Yeah. >> We haven't lost you yet. >> So, there's a there's another slide deck if >> Yes. Uh CTTV, can you uh bring up the other slide deck, please? [snorts] >> So, while while that's going up, thank you for inviting us again. We uh we want to share with you our progress on the same topic that that John >> 73 is what we're waiting for >> which is uh where we are in the in the citywide planning process uh what percent completes we are and what's coming up next and when we expect to be completed with the program which is what everybody wants to know. >> Okay, we're still waiting for CTV >> loading. You know, if we had Apple, it would be faster. >> So, that's okay. I can I can >> They don't have it. >> I can add lib. >> Does somebody have a hard copy? They >> Is it? >> Yeah. >> I have here >> here. Somebody want to Marty, would you run that down to them, please? >> Oh, thank you. >> Okay, we go. Just take the staple out >> and you can throw it on the wolf. >> Yeah, >> wolf. [laughter] >> Say that again. >> So, let's see. Here we go. >> Okay. >> Um, can you >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Oh, there we go. >> Okay. >> Here's our agenda. I'll be I'll be very brief again. We're going to give you a recap where we've done where we are with the program and our expected uh days to finalize the effort and next steps. And one of the things that we've talked about before and John alluded to in his presentation is that we always like to remind everybody that we talk to about where we are in the process. This is the same process that Hillsboro County follows. This is the same process that Manatee County follows. And what's the beauty of it is that it's not just for storm water. This could be for any public project. It could be given the limited resources human and capital that cities and counties and municipalities in general have. We have to be spending money on problems and and that's what that first item is. There's a problem definition and from that we go to doing the modeling which is where we are right now. Then we go to design, construction and then maintenance. And um and following that, let's see, you have on the other side. So these are all the city basins that we have and there's a total of 46 basins and we overlaid the districts on that one as well. The blue basins are the basins that are that have been previously studied. So the ones that have been previously studied we they took lower priority and then we focus on the ones that have not been studied yet which are the ones that are uh underway and we've shared with you in the past. Let's see. >> There you go. >> Okay. Beautiful. So we have six engineering firms, local and national engineering firms that are that have been retained by the city of Tampa to work on this effort. And these are the bases that that I have been working on. Some of them for example like lower peninsula is being updated again um just because of the development that that we've had in there. So jumping right into where we are in the existing studies. Uh this shows the percent complete where we are u as of last week with each one of these studies and they are we're happy to report they are all on track. As you see, the majority of those are um above the 50% level and we are looking to wrap wrap up phase one for the for this group one by February of 2026. From a budget perspective also, we're still tracking on budget and we will estimate that by February 2026, we have expended about 47% of the $5 million that has been allocated for this program. The next step is group two, which is our our next priority. and group two um uh will we we are actually in the process of negotiating those scopes of work for all six items. Some consultants already have theirs and so no I'm sorry not not these not these yet but we're in the process of actually getting these on board and I have a date here that's shown as August 2026 and this is when we're going to finish all group one and there will be projects identified by then which will be the summer. Also to the point that was brought up earlier regarding coordination with the county. Uh we are looking at all these all these areas that are basins that start in Hillsboro County and drain into into the city. Curiosity Creek, hisboro River, uh Duck Pond and Drew Park, Northwest 5, those are areas that we're going to be also including in our in our effort coming up. And the beauty of this is that once we finish those updates, we will be over the 50% threshold that would be needed by the city to get our new CRS uh rating with uh with that program. And that will allow us to get a discount. Let's see where are we here. And that will allow us to get a discount once we are done with that program. Um, we are looking to finish. Okay, speaking of the program briefly, u we are right now at a five and we got we're looking to be at CRS rating of three. We're almost there. The 50%. It looks different when you're doing it with slides than with paper, but the slides would have been a lot cleaner to to show. But uh when we go over the 50% threshold, we will be at the CRS rating of three, which will give us the 35% discount and 808.3 million overall savings, which is something that everybody is looking for. From a timeline perspective, we're looking to finish the entire program by December 2026, which will be this time next year. So finger crossed we will continue on that on that uh on that pace and and more importantly we'll be still forecasted to be under the $5 million that was allocated. So that's a key metric there. Some examples of some of the projects that are ongoing are the Alprao outfall which is uh we we're starting to see the beginning of some proposed projects there. Same thing with um there's another one here. I have one for lower peninsula. That's fine. I'll move I'll move that on. Here's the lower peninsula. As I I mentioned, we're updating lower peninsula as well. And the beauty here is that as you know, the city just finished building uh McDill 42 and and one some of those areas. And now we're we're updating the rest to see if anything needs to be changed from that original recommendation. And you've seen also Manhattan Avenue construction that is underway right now. So avoid Manhattan whenever you can. And with this we will take any questions that you may have. Council have any questions on this update. >> Hearing none. Okay. Just just a statement and we can talk about this offline, but as I mentioned in the last session, the the the neighborhoods and this is not the businesses. The neighborhoods have done an extensive study of Palaceia Pines and and uh um it has a western outflow down Cleveland and which has been studied multiple times and um outside engineers um consulted by the neighborhoods have have looked at it and believe that a um that the city can and should have a pomacy of pines study that that would be done separately and uh because now we're being told that pomacy of pines is in phase two. So it might be five or six years before there's any relief and some somehow folks in Palm of Pines and Parkland states have been convinced that this is going to help them in some way in the short run when it's not. Um we don't have to have a long discussion about it now but I but I I hope that we can have um a dialogue about it. I hope you as outside engineer can help us. Um there were there was information was presented the last couple years that that it that does not match with what we're finding in public records. And so, um, what I'm hoping is that we can come back to city council with a with an honest, thorough analysis to say that the city would save money by by having a um a pomacy of pines project first and that would help Parkland states because the water would not flow in. What appears happens is the uh two um retention ponds that were not permitted, not maintained overflowed and and because the Cleveland outfall has flaws in it um and and and problems with it that the water flowed into into Parkland estates and uh for it appears and the public believes that for some reason the administration just wants this Howard Avenue project which seems to not make sense. My last qu my only question to you um the from our analysis looking at the bond documents it appears the city does not have the cash flow to pay for some reason the number for for for South project is 65 million but we're being told privately that it's 100 million plus interest um in this the last presentation was about the CIP for the county uh we know we don't have the cash flow for our CIP overall but just for the South Tower project it from all of our analyses It it appears that the administration is going to have to raise the stormwater fee just for that project. Um does anybody have an answer for that? Can we can we affirmally Some people in the community are being told that that no the administration has the money without raising stormwater fees. Uh but it doesn't look like the city has the the even the um in four million of excess cash a year. doesn't look like the city has the money to cover any additional debt either for that project >> without [snorts] raising storm >> fees. Hold on one second. I think if you want to bring up new business, but as far as this particular report, I don't know if this is a question. >> Well, this is a subset of the whole thing. The idea here is that there's an outside party that's looking at all of it and this is just a small subset, >> but I mean they're not looking at the funding side of that. That's >> Yeah. >> Can I just get since he's there, can I just get him to answer the question? >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. And again, I don't mean to intrude, but you you did ask, can anybody answer the question? Could you restate the question, please, sir? >> Start with your name, sir. >> Oh, Dennis Rarero, chief financial officer. Good afternoon, council. >> So, we we funded $7 million in the South Howard project. We're I'm being told privately that it could be up to 100 million plus interest. >> And I'm I'm sorry, I thought you said 7 million. >> We paid 7 million for the design phase. So, that's allocated already. But then the the next stage is going to be 20 or 30 million etc. So the qu and it appears in looking at the the the cash flow um out of 15 or 16 million um I won't remember the numbers because it's late in the day. Uh I think 11 million is allocated toward paying the addition the current debt >> um of which I think we figured out we have about 20 million left over. Um we're it doesn't look like we have the cash flow to pay any additional debt for the South Hour project or any of the other um additional CIPs that they might prioritize um without raising the storm water fee. Um >> understood. >> Understood. What I can state is this and I and I hope this answers your question. If it doesn't, please let me know. What I can state is this. We don't anticipate increasing the storm water improvement assessment fee for anything that's not already in the plan, including South Howard. We, as uh as I think council and the public knows, we don't have the guaranteed maximum price for the South Howard project. Now, the 2022 price or estimate, excuse me, was about $65 million. We have not identified all of the funding for that. But I but I what I can tell you is we have no intention nor plans to increase the storm water service assessment for that project. >> Since it's an enterprise fund, it either has to come from existing revenues >> or debt which is paid out of existing revenues or it has to be paid out of increase. But it appears that the and we I can make a motion to have you all come back another time, but it appears that there's no cash flow to pay for any additional um expenses above that. No. Um is >> agreed. At this time we do not have that fund. We have a number of potential funding sources, but we don't have certain funding. >> So maybe maybe you're talking about like a federal grant or something like that. Yes, sir. Okay. >> But it's not confirmed yet. It's not nothing is >> Thank you. Again, I just want to answer the question. >> So hearing nothing else, that would be the completion of item 73. Thank you for your report. We'll look forward to seeing another one in February. >> Very good. Okay, we're going to move on to 75. Let's talk mobility fees. And the fun just keeps happening. I think I'm last. >> Uh, no, you actually second to last. >> Second to last. All right. >> We didn't do the charter thing, did we? Did we move that one? >> No, we didn't. Yeah. >> We have not yet. No. >> All right. Adam Purcell, uh, interim transportation services director. >> Um, I'm here tonight to talk about the multimodal impact fee. Um and what we hope to accomplish tonight in this discussion is to identify the rate of assessment uh that we can move forward into an ordinance uh that will then be heard in December. Um this is our fourth pre presentation with city council. Uh we started discussing this with you back in July. Uh we had two workshops in September and October where we discussed extraordinary circumstances. Um and following that workshop in October and the discussion here, we were able to complete our report. Um and we issued that report or a draft of that report on November 6th. Uh we submitted it to to council via email. Uh we also engaged our stakeholders and sent it to the uh Tampa Bay Builders Association and other stakeholders uh via email and posted it to the city website the same day. Uh so everyone's had at least two weeks to take a look at that report. um and and come here today to discuss it. Uh I wanted to to discuss one topic that there has been some discussion in the past that that city staff was withholding information on the multimodal impact fee um and not conveying that effectively to the stakeholder team. Uh a letter specifically noted a meeting on October 28th uh where information was not available. Um the reason the information was not shared with the stakeholders on the 28th was because it was not available. Um we had a draft internal table that we had used for discussion within the city staff. Uh that city uh that information was was was known to be um not fully updated and required additional updates. We received those updates on October 29th and then brought that information to council on the 30th. So the progression of those events was that we met, we got additional information and we presented to the council and the public at the same time. Um we've actively engaged our stakeholders. We started meeting with stakeholder groups back in July. Um and have continued that engagement um throughout the workshops and and since we've had additional meetings with the builders association and other stakeholders um and and hope to continue that active engagement. Uh tonight, um we're gonna have Katherine TZ from Fair and Pierce um come up and and walk us through the report that was provided to um to council and to the public um to set us up for the discussion on on rate adjustment. And with that, I'll turn it over to Katherine. >> Katherine, start with your name, please. >> Hello, Katherine Tles with Fair and Peers. See, and is the presentation working? >> Uh not yet. CTV, do you have the presentation for item number 75? >> I do have it printed out, but I did two to a page. >> Okay, let's just go with that then. Let's do the easiest path. There we go. >> Didn't want to waste paper. >> Okay, if we could get the wolf up on the public monitors. >> All right, so there we go. Perfect. Um, so as Adam mentioned, we've been before you a few times, so we're just going to do sort of a brief recap on some of the things that we've already talked about, um, for the benefit of people who might be hearing this for the the first time. Um, so an impact fee is assessed by local governments on new development to help fund the cost of infrastructure needed to support that development. Um fees are typically paid at the time a building permit is issued and they're designed to offset the financial impact of new development um on that public infrastructure. So today we're only talking about the multimodal impact fee. There are a number of other types of fees that can be assessed, but for today it's just the multimodal impact fee. Um and this is a a one-time fee that is assessed. So, we've talked before about the the history of the fee in the the city of Tampa, um, and how it was first established in 1989. Um, and then it was most recently updated in 2014 to change it from a roadway impact fee to a multimodal fee, but at that time, the fee schedule itself was not updated. So, we're still imposing those 1989 basis rates on on new development. uh today. So you all had a copy of the the report provided. Um so we're just going to kind of walk through some of the the various different things. So it's organized into six chapters and then although I do apologize the report is a little long itself. Um we tried to put as much as we could in the technical appendices so that way all the information was there but we tried to keep that main report u pretty succinct. Um so um just kind of go through some of those those key items in the the report tonight and then we'll get to to the fee tables. So one of the the first things that we just wanted to to highlight is the demonstrated need study that was prepared that outlines some of the extraordinary circumstances facing the the city of TA Tampa. Um and if a finding of extraordinary circumstances is made, it would allow the impact fee to be increased beyond the phase in limitations. So we had those two workshops to to discuss those. Um and so we won't go through all of that again because those are available online if folks wanted to to listen to those presentations. Um so the component of the multimodal fee um at a high level it's it's fairly fairly simple. Um we're really looking at what's that new demand on the transportation system. Then how much is it to actually build that uh that system and then we want to avoid double taxation. So there's a credit component to account for gas taxes that are paid. And then we do some math based on trip lengths and other character travel characteristics. Um and we come up with a maximum impact fee. Um, so just because we've calculated that as the maximum rate, that does not mean you have to set it at the maximum rate. It just means you cannot set an impact fee rate above that maximum. So for the demand component, it includes a number of different things. So how many trips does a a new development generate? And we're looking at multimodal trips. In this uh multimodal impact fee, the basis of it is a person trip generation calculation. Um so one of the the sources we used to establish sort of the the how many trips was the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual um which documents travel characteristics from a host of land uses. Um, we then also look at, well, how long are those trips? Because not all trips are are the same length and you might drive much farther for for work um than you might to go grocery shopping. So, we wanted to acknowledge that that not all trips have that same length. Um, and then there's other factors that are included too, such as the percent of new trips. Um, and so we wanted to account for some of those trips being a pass by trip. So, for example, for a daycare center, you might have a a working parent dropping their child off at daycare on their way to work. Or for a grocery store or shopping center, somebody might be dropping off on their way home from work to to pick up some some groceries. We then look at the the cost component. So, this includes a number of different factors. So, the design of uh the the infrastructure, if right ofway is needed, um how much it actually costs to construct that facility. So, that's your the labor cost, asphalt, all of those things that go into it. Um and then we've also included some um transit costs as well. Um and these here, this table here just kind of shows the the cost escalation and all of that's documented in the the report. Then there's the question of well what can we build? So we we went through this list at the the last uh presentation we had. So we we made a couple of refinements to the text based on the the feedback. Um but there's a lot of different things that that can be built and and really based on the legislature. It needs to be a capital improvement and it needs to have a lifespan of at least um five years. So, we went through the Tampa Moves uh uh report that was put together that has a list of a a host of uh multimodal projects that are planned throughout the city. And so, we just wanted to to highlight a couple of examples and how the multimodal impact fee could be used to help advance those projects. Um so, the first project example is on North Jefferson Street between Channelside and Cass Street. Um, and so the the project that's identified in Tampa Moves proposes to modify the corridor to provide a separated bike lane, add a turn lane, implement some speed management, add additional crossing treatments. And so these improvements would increase safety for people walking and biking as well as as driving. Um, it would also make walking and biking travel modes more attractive. Um, it would reduce the frequency and severity of collisions with the speed management. Um, and that would decrease the potential for non-recurring congestion that that happens when there is those traffic crashes. Um, and that would overall improve the travel time reliability along the corridor. Um, and then coupled with some of the crossing improvements that would increase overall access to destinations along the corridor. So, as more walking and biking trips can be accommodated, the those offset the potential capacity decreases for people in a vehicle. Um and the intersection improvements to add some turn lanes and improve overall traffic signal operations would improve the overall um intersection operations and again increase that travel time reliability along the corridor. So the multimodal impact fee could not pay for the entirety of that project, but it can uh pay for portions of that project such as roadway reconstruction to add the separated bike lanes and the associated drainage and utility improvements that might need to happen as a part of that. Um it could construct the the turn lanes and right-of-way acquisition if any was needed at any of the the corners. Um and it could also fund the crossing improvements and some of the speed management um treatments. Um the other example we had was in the interbay district that would add a trail, add some pedestrian crossings, some speed management and signals. Um so some of the the same rationale behind that project just in terms of adding overall person capacity um adding capacity at the intersection by providing the signal the speed management improving overall safety and reliability. Um and the impact fee revenues could be used to fund the trail, the crossing, speed management, treatments, traffic signals, associated drainage and utility um relocation and right-of-way acquisition if that was needed needed. And then does the impact fee apply to all land developments equally? Uh no. We already went through this in our our last presentation, so we'll just kind of jump ahead to to what everybody's waiting for. Um, so as we noted in our last presentation, the overall fee increases, they they vary by location. There is no one answer. It's not a a one-size uh fits all with um factors beyond just construction costs really contributing to how rates have changed. um the trip rates and trip length data played a large role in that. So the next few slides will just kind of show show where things are are landing. So um we also updated this to include some comparisons to some of the largest cities in in Florida. Um so this table here shows the current average fee for all districts for sort of the five most common land uses. And then we looked at just construction inflation. So if we just updated the current fee based on construction inflation, what would that fee be? Um and then we compared it to the average of that maximum fee that we calculated across all of the districts. Um and then we pulled, as I I mentioned before, the fee comparison to a number of different communities. And this one really just focused on the the largest one. So, um, this slide here is showing Jacksonville, Miami Dade County, which includes Miami, um, city of Orlando. Um, and so we can see there's kind of a wide variation. Um, just want to note that the city of Jacksonville actually has 10 different zones and it's very difficult to come up with a a really great comparison there. Um, but they they are lower in Jacksonville. Um and then Miami Dade County for the most part it's a lot higher than um the maximum rates that are being calculated here. Um and then we'd already shared Orlando before which is kind of in the same same range. Um and then we looked at the sort of the the next set of cities. Um and so with this we have St. Pete, Port St. Lucy, Cape Coral and Hyia. Um and just want to note that um again it's kind of all over the place. So, some of them are lower, some of them are higher. Um, in St. Pete, they are undergoing an update. Um, that was paused, but when that resumes, it is likely that their fee um will be increased. Um, the Port St. Lucy fee was last updated in 2021. Um, and that's coming in, you know, slightly lower than city of Tampa. Um, Cape Coral was established in 2005 and they're currently undergoing an update and their updated fee schedule is not yet available. Um, and if you happen to be developing in Hyalia, they not only have a city fee that is imposed, they also have a county fee that's imposed. So, those two numbers are are additive. So, um, as I mentioned, the the comparisons, they're kind of all over the place with each jurisdiction um, being unique. So, let's focus now on what's happening here and just looking at some of the the fee fee districts. So, there's six overall fee districts and don't worry, we're not going to go through each one in copious detail. Um, but we'll just kind of go through a couple of highlights here. So, this one is in the central business district, and this chart is showing kind of those five most common land uses. Um it's showing what the current impact fee is, the inflation adjusted fee, um and then the the maximum impact fee that was calculated. Um and then over here on this side, we're showing what that impact fee would be if you do not make a finding of extraordinary circumstances. and the fee increases are limited to no more than 50% of the current fee phased in over four years. So that's what this chart here is showing. Um and just want to highlight that the um the fee for office and warehouse the maximum that we calculated is actually lower than the current fee based on all the travel characteristics and everything else. Um, so that new lower fee unfortunately would not be phased in over the four years. It would go into effect immediately. [clears throat] >> Mr. Chairman, if I can interrupt just very >> Mr. Shelby. >> Yes. Um, if you could uh just state your name again for the record so we could note who the ev this evidence is coming from if you don't mind. >> Katherine Tles. >> Katherine Tles and you're from the firm of >> Fair and Peers. >> Thank you so much. Sorry to interrupt. >> That's Thank you. pesky records. >> And then this table here is pretty similar. Has a lot of the same information. Um, but this is if you make that finding of extraordinary circumstances with the maximum allowable fee then set at the maximum that we calculated. Um, and then you could see how that might look if that was phased in over a 4-year period as well. And then we'll just we did [snorts] the we did these for for all of the districts and they're all in the report. And so this is just a um an example from the interbay district. So you can kind of see that um that similar logic there. And then this is what the fee increases could be um with that extraordinary circumstances finding. And then again what that might look like if it was phased in over a four-year period. Um, so wanted to kind of share a couple reall life potential development examples before we we wrap up here. Um, so the first example calculation seems like it's a pretty common sort of redevelopment type scenario where somebody buys an existing home that you know maybe let's just say it's about a,200 foot home. So that falls into one impact fee rate category. Um, and let's say the there's a developer who plans to demolish that home and build a 3200 foot home. So, the they would get a credit for that existing structure that's on the property. Um, and since there's different fee rates for different size homes, they would get one fee fee uh credit for that smaller home. And then if they, you know, built that larger home, they would then be imposed the the higher fee. But what would they would pay would actually just be that net difference. So their overall impact fee in this instance would be about um $2,300. And an example calculation two um this is sort of an imaginary project in the Central East District. Remember each district has their own fee schedule. Um, and in this example, it's a vacant lot and somebody wants to come in and build a 200 unit six-story apartment building. So, there would be no fee credit for that existing use. And they would be assessed $2,82.98 uh for each of those 200 units. So, that would be, you know, a little over a half million in impact fees that they would be assessed. Um, but you know, developers, they're smart and they want to build things that people want to rent or buy. And in this instance, let's just imagine that the city had done all these investments in a multimodal transportation system where the developer didn't think that people would actually uh lease all of the parking spaces. Um, and so they apply to get a a variance and have a parking reduction. um based on the the code, they could reduce that parking supply by about 20%. Um and if this was parking that is structured parking, then that could actually save them, you know, over $1.5 million u if each of those parking spaces cost about $25,000 to build. Again, this is just a hypothetical example. And then the the last example calculation we have here um is a retail development. So, um, for this one, it's a 125,000 square foot, uh, retail center that has a grocery store. That type of development will generate about 12,000 vehicle trips a day. Um, and that rate, the impact fee rate for that is a little over $31,000 a square foot. So, that would equate to almost $4 million. So, with that level of fee assessment, the city could um construct some traffic signals at adjacent intersections. They could add some turn lanes and they could add some trails and sidewalks and other things to to help people walk and bike and drive um to this this type of development. Um so with that I'll hand it over to Adam. >> Yep. Adam PCEL, interim transportation services director, city of Tampa. Um I wanted to hit a couple key points in Katherine's discussion before we move to the discussion of rate. um first that the action that we're undertaking to modify the impact fee is rate only. Um we're not modifying the policy. The policy of what you can do, what projects can be implemented under that program was established in 2014 and has been in place for more than a decade. So, so we're not changing what it can be used for. What we're changing is how much uh the developers have to pay into the impact fee um as part of their action. Um, also we've had a few more discussions and and wanted to get some more uh local uh examples of of what the impact fee can be used for. Here's an example. Um, Cleveland Street um at Rome. Uh, you can see down in the bottom right hand corner. Uh, that's what it looked like in 2014. Um, it was a a large parking lot with some retail or office space associated with it. Um, and since 2014 there's been a four-story condo built. Um and now with impact fee funds, what do we anticipate to build at this intersection? Uh but a traffic signal. And that traffic signal is being funded through impact fees. So So that's an example of the kind of infrastructure um that development is paying for. Um also elsewhere in the city, elsewhere in the city uh there's uh the green artery project. So, green artery segment E has been constructed. Uh, that project is a much larger project. Um, it cost $1.88 million for segment E. U, but about $225,000 of the funding for that project came from impact fees. So, so we can do a range of things. It's not just um green artery type improvements. It's not just bike ped focused. It's traffic signals and bike ped. Um, so there's a range, like Katherine said, there's a range of different activities that can be funded through this. Um why now? Um and why use the extraordinary circumstance uh and ex exceed the 50% threshold on this fee? Um because if we followed uh the state statute and we followed the less than 50% of the existing rate, our current impact fees are so low that it would take us nearly 20 years to catch the cost of construction. So um it's been 36 years since we increased it last and if we follow the state statute it will be 20 more before we catch the cost of construction. So that's u that's why staff has been looking at this and that's why we've advanced uh these kinds of figures. Uh we understand that a sizable increase um has the potential to shock development. We heard that this morning in open comment uh that there was concern for um for impact to the development activity within the city. Um, we've had conversations with the homebuilders where they've expressed those concerns. We've had conversations with council where they've expressed those concerns. Um, we came up with some ideas on how we could help mitigate that. Uh, one of them would be a delayed implementation of the program. Um, it the state statute says that we can implement it no less than 90 days after the second hearing of the ordinance in in adoption. Um, but we can push it out further. staff would recommend we consider a time frame of of somewhere around six months, delay it until June um and give the development community more time to react to it. Um we would also suggest that we uh phase it in and that's the handout that you just received. Um we received additional feedback um from council that they would like to see some percentage implementation of the fee. And again, I want to make the distinction. The state statute says it's 50% of the existing fee. Um, which in the case of a a multif family in the central business district is $373. So, if we did 50% of that fee, that would be the maximum that we could raise it over four years under the state statute, which which would take a very long time to catch up to construction costs. Um, what we're looking at is the the maximum fee. Um, and then you can see the lines below that that is a um if that maximum fee were implemented at 75% of the maximum fee or 50% of the maximum fee. And then what we would propose is that it be walked in over four years. And these figures show what that annual fee would be if it were walked in over that period. Um, with that I I think we send it to public comment, but then I'm here for question and answer. >> No, no public comment on this one today. Um, I one I want to thank you because I think you've captured exactly what needed to be done here per our conversations. I think a a June 1st implementation gives people some time. I think staggering this over four years allows them to adjust their business plan and their business models to to appropriately react to this. And as I as I spoke, just y'all don't know because we can't talk about it. I'm also going to sometime between now and June 1st talk about a carrot approach of maybe reducing these for construction of multif family in uh on transportation corridors and affordable housing of 80% and AMI and below so that we have a carrot approach as opposed to the stick as well. But so but I mean for for today I think we need to just move forward on this with this plan of implementation and the uh and the delayed till June 1st. Go ahead, Council Herz. >> I agree in in that uh I I believe we already have uh things in the the code for affordable housing reductions, do we not? >> Right. I would have to look at the land development code. Um that doesn't really fall within the purview of mobility >> cut. But but no, I I definitely agree with you. I think we we need to discuss that. But I for me the thing that hit home and if you could put it back on the screen, the the image of the apartment complex. Oh, yeah. 100%. The one the one at Cleveland. >> Yeah, that that just did it for me because I know how expensive a traffic signal is. I had no idea. It's like a million dollars. >> It's crazy. It's crazy. >> It's a million dollars to put a traffic signal here and we we can't do it with $955. >> Yeah, I agree. Councilman Mascalo, >> you you both had mentioned delay till June >> June 1st implementation. That gives the that gives the community opportunity because you know they they got projects in play. They've got things going on. It gives them time to to to adjust their business plan and adjust their models and then having the stagger buffers the impact of it as well as far as >> Okay. Before before Okay. So you're going to >> top line >> the top line of implementing it gradually over the next several years >> starting in June 1st >> but giving them till June >> to like you said recalibrate, reorganize and and >> Yeah. I think I think this is really a good compromise and I think it's really I think I think the development community I see a good friend of mine sitting there in the back row. I think the development community should be able to adjust to this as well. I think with the with the delayed entry into June and then having it staggered over four years and then we you know we can look at things between now and June too. But I think this is a really good a good leap forward for the city of Tampa. >> Yeah. And I'm not going to talk a long time on this but I was talking I've talked to a lot of people about this. you know, development community, neighborhood people. Uh, and we were comparing this to like the tariffs, right? Because it was an initial boom. I specifically, you know, my background >> uh some terrorists, Switzerland, for example, they make watches >> in in August it was a 39% implementation and it just now it's been reduced to 15. But anyways, that initial shock all at once right? >> I mean, it sends a ripple effect. Uh so in this case if we do delay it till June if we implement it over several years we will be reaching our goals but we're not you know just hitting everybody all at once. So I can understand that. All right. >> So what do you need from us? Just a acknowledgement that this is the kind of direction we need to go. >> Right. The the recommendation that I it's the first line. So the the non reduced rate over a four-year implementation time frame um delayed till initiation on June 6. I think that's it. And um Councilwoman Young, we had a conversation about um wanting to to put those carveouts in the the area or the use exceptions and that's something that we can work over the next six months as this >> winds up um that we can get those in place. Um it can be can be figured out in that near-term time frame, >> subsequent motions. That's that's what I was talking about as well. >> Yeah, I was going to say because I'd be interested to know about that, too. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, um so you want a motion on this? I mean, it's a it's more of a presentation. There's not What What would make what's good for your comfort level as far as moving this thing forward? >> I'll defer to legal. >> I'm a Gregory uh legal department. Um I just wanted to come up here and ask a question because I will be going back to my office this evening and making some changes to the draft ordinance. Um, I mean, if you all are satisfied with the direction that we've been given, that's fine with me because there will certain certainly be opportunities to vote on um what we will come back with at first and second reading. So, just to confirm my understanding, we're going to go with the the maximum rate as established by the uh study, >> right? phase it in over four years >> starting June 1st which is a month >> with an effective date of June one >> one >> okay cool thank you >> okay Mr. Shelby >> would you be able to provide a timeline for first and second readings for the calendar just so we just so we're able to plan so >> we can block it out December 4th and December 18th >> well I think it has it has to happen Okay. So, do we do we do we need can we take a motion now? >> Yeah. Well, actually, you could you could make a motion to have the meeting placed on >> the 4th and the 18th >> following the direction that uh that you've received. >> Okay. I'm willing to hear a motion. >> So, move [laughter] >> December >> put it on December 4th and December 18th. So, >> well, put put it on December 4th and then we'll be able to set it at that hearing. >> So, first reading on December 4th. >> Okay. So, I have a motion. Counciloman Herk, second from Counciloman Scout. All those in favor say I. I oppose. Eyes have it. With those understandings. Thank you. But good work on that. Really good council. Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Shelby, bring us home. >> Yes. I'll make this brief. You have the substitute. Substitute. I hate >> You're out of time, man. [laughter] Basically, basically it's changing one word in 3B from be above to a forementioned. But putting that aside, you have in front of you um pursuant to your direction from the special call meeting. You've had it for your review. You have the timeline of mile post section 7. I will tell you that uh I've been working with the clerk and um um Miss Lucas Harris can uh can address this, but my understanding is that once this is passed and it becomes official, the uh online application will be available to your nominees early next week. So that means um that um they can get started and I believe Miss Lucas Harris, would you be able to notify city council when that goes live? >> And then also ask them please to forward to you the email address of your nominee. And the reason [music] that that is asked is because they need to receive the form uh one financial disclosure to be able to submit that. Now what happens is when the application is submitted it gets forwarded to a background check and just to let people know we don't know if we will find out it's a it's a it's a yes no they either pass the background check or they don't we don't make inquiries as to why or what is the reason but you'll have that. Now I recommend >> if you look at the last page for the timeline Okay. You got to kill that. If you look at the uh page four actually um December 18th is the date for the adoption of the resolution tentative date and again it says the following timeline is subject to change but if we want to get them up and running and begin planning to have them in January uh December 18th is for the adoption of the resolution regard um appointing the members and alternates in designating facilitator and legal counsel. So, in order for us to have that resolution prepared, I recommend a deadline for submission by December 11th, a deadline for your nominees to put their names in and have so that way it allows time for the background check to be done >> and it has uh in worst case scenario, if whatever reason we don't make December 18th, we could move it to the first meeting in January, but I prefer not because we need to pick it. Okay. I I recommend that we have our um nominees in by the 5th. December >> 5th. >> We're dependent upon the >> Yeah. >> But I mean, but once you have the >> My plan is to have the up and >> Okay, good. >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. >> I know who mine is already. >> Yeah, me too. And just just if you just for now to take a look at what happens after everything happens, um you'll see there's a deadline for the um for them, the charter review commission to give you the um the um the recommendations. The following week, even though the calendar does not go out to September, I'm recommending your initial review. you'll have a week to look at it on your own and then come back for a workshop and then October 1st um would be your approval of that and then on November 5th the first of 2026 the first reading. So um if this is acceptable to council your next step is to move this resolution and let's get the >> substitute resolution >> substitute resolution. >> Yes, >> we have a motion from councilwoman her to move the substitute resolution. A second from >> second from Councilman Vieier. All those in favor say I. I opposed. eyes have it. >> Start from this side. >> Okay. >> Well, actually, um, would you like to talk about the attorney? >> Actually, Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if you were going to do that under new business. Do you want to do it now? >> Appropriate to talk. It seems appropriate to talk about it now. >> Okay, that's very good. Um, um, uh, I have done research. which I have made inquiries [snorts] uh um uh in the um in the local bar and uh I brought to the I brought to >> local bar anchor [laughter] bar. >> Sorry, >> don't give me any ideas. >> Lawyers can't pass a bar. >> Yeah, [laughter] >> that's but but what I did was I brought a particular attorney to um uh the chair's attention. Um and uh his uh name is Kenneth Tinkler. He is a partner at Carlton Fields and >> and why is Carlton Fields important? >> Why? >> Because they don't have a >> Oh, they don't have a very strong They don't have much of a relationship at all with the city >> and uh they are not part of the group that is on the list that has job orders with the city attorney's office. and [clears throat] we were able to uh um uh to get a rate that is in line with what the city attorney would pay for a specialty attorney. Um the chair had had an opportunity to uh invite him into the office this week and they spoke. Um a and what we can do if that would meet with your approval council is I can forward you his biography uh after this meeting and we can invite him to the next regular meeting of city council um where you can actually um uh um do what you you know have the same interaction that you had with the facilitator a similar you know meet and greet get to know ask any questions that you might have and then what you if you look at the timeline again the timeline for the uh adoption of the resolution engaging both the uh facilitator and legal council will come back to you on the 18th. >> Did he pass pass muster? Is that >> he he did? I queried him extensively. He does not live in the city. He doesn't have any interest. So he's not a voter. He doesn't have he's got extensive experience with government and and charters. And so he's a subject matter expert, doesn't live in the city. There's no conflict. I asked about personal relationships with people. He he passed the muster with that as well. policy doesn't have I mean he knows people but only in passing or casual not no >> cuz we had an attorney we had an attorney 20 something years ago say I had I don't have a dog in the fight >> I don't have a dog >> did you say that when you came up here I think you said >> I did do that >> well very similar I mean I I I pretty much grilled him but you all have that opportunity >> and also if I could just add to that um he has done work with the charter review commission for Hillsboro County when he was an assistant county attorney um and also He does work with um uh uh Lee County, Pasco County I believe. And um >> the the interesting thing is again for this type of subject matter, there's not that many people that have any kind of like background or experience of and uh and we talked a little bit about, you know, the role between himself and the facilitator and how these meetings, you know, what his role is of and then in of course incorporating the conversation into legal ease language to get this to get this stuff to the to us that to us then to go to the ballot. and also that I have had personal experience with him um as well. >> And we didn't hold that against him. >> I Well, you which you told him? >> Yes. [laughter] >> Uh he is also board certified as I am in city, county, and local government law with the Florida Bar, which is why I knew of him >> for many years. >> Okay. So, um so we'll we'll invite him and add him as u to that next. I don't think we need a motion for that. I'll just add under an agenda review. We'll just add him to that >> and I will get his bio to the council. >> Okay. And and I am just totally blanking out. Did we just Yeah, we did move that substitute resolution. Right. So, we're back. New business. Council Malco. >> Yes. >> Don't get mad. >> Oh, I just want to wish a happy birthday to Kelly Sharp, your legislative aid. I saw that back there and and I know she does a a wonderful job. So, >> happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, dear Kelly. >> Council Carlson, take us home. >> Happy [laughter] birthday to you. Beautiful. >> So, so funny story. She did. She asked me not to have any desserts for her, but I think after being serenated by us, I think next year she's going to change her mind, too. >> But [laughter] no, happy birthday, Kelly. But more importantly, h happy anniversary to my wife. It's on Thanksgiving Day this year, so it's our fouryear anniversary. >> Congratulations. of putting up with you. >> Yes, she's she's a she's very patient. So is my legislative aid and and several of my friends. So I appreciate [laughter] I'm I'm not the easiest. Thank you very >> Where is that list? Oh, here it is. >> Councilwoman Hart. >> Uh thank you. I had just a couple of things I didn't know. Did you want to talk about heart >> about >> Hartwin? Oh no. Um, so, uh, we just found out today that, um, thanks to our wonderful Congresswoman Kathy Caster, Hart got $32 million for 33 new buses that are replacing the aging um, diesel uh, fleet. And we will be the first transit agency in Florida with 100% low emissions CNG fixed route fleet. >> Yeah, that's pretty cool. >> So, it's really cool. It's not unfortunately anything that can be done like brick and mortar, but it will be able so we can take that money and not have to replace buses and ideally >> buses that need to be replaced >> that desperately need to be replaced. It says that they each bus that they're replacing averages 688,000 miles already ridden. So, >> and high maintenance >> and high maintenance. And then I believe um your your aid Sam has something also uh that I think he was going to come up and and put up for me. >> Are we going to sing to the congresswoman to thank her? Sam, you have something to put up. We can go back. We can circle back if you >> Yeah. Um well, basically he just wanted to put up um today is the um or tonight at 6:30 is the um transgender uh day of remembrance and there will be a vigil at um Riverest Park. He's got it. He's going to pop it on the wolf for me. And so, um, if you if you have a moment to attend, uh, it is a it is a wonderful, um, event and it's something that, you know, uh, some of the public comment today talked about, you know, making sure that we we let folks know that we're paying attention and we care about the things that people care about. And this council and board very clearly support has supported the LGBTQ plus community. And so I think that that even just sharing this and making sure people know about it is is a is a one of our commitments to that transparency and support. >> Very good. Councilwoman Young, any new business? >> Any new business? Any motion? Any happy? >> You don't you don't have you don't have to. >> No. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Councilman Vier. >> A couple of things and thank you Councilman Herac for that. I don't know if and Sam, thank you for that. I don't know if I can make it tonight because of a commitment I have to my son, but but thank you. That's a obviously a wonderful um reminder. Couple of quick things if I may. I wanted to y'all had gotten a memo on we all know and I wish Charlie Miranda was here for this uh but Tony Garcia who had worked with our planning commission, his late father who was an amazing man um did um almost think it was 30 years as the head of the USO here and was a wonderful veteran advocate and just a great West Tampa uh leader. I motion for staff to return with a presentation regarding a request for a street renaming to honor the late Tony Garcia Jr. to return on January 22nd meeting with a staff presentation. The memorandum and corresponding documents were sent some time ago um about a month ago. So that's and I wish again Charlie was here for them. >> You're talking about Tony's dad. >> Oh yeah. Not Tony. Oh yeah. >> So sit down with Tony and the stories are unbelievable with and the pictures the proof. So yeah. Second. Absolutely. And he did, ask anybody, anybody knows, he was always doing something in the community. Good. >> 68. >> Okay, we're good. Okay. Sure. >> Okay. Counciloman Hertch, you had a question. >> I just had a quick question for the clerk. So, uh, we I made a motion a while ago for a placeholder for the proposed ordinance on raising the multimmoal transportation fee. Can I now take that off the agenda and have it just replaced by the They're bringing a motion forward. So So we went ahead and made a placeholder so that there would be a spot. Can I can I now just take that off? So I motion >> is not going to fall under the >> Okay. Well, I I'll just go ahead and remove that placeholder for the multimodal transportation fee for both December 4th and 18th because it's they're coming as ordinances and not staff reports. So we have a motion. Councilwoman Herk a second from >> second. >> Councilman Mascal. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed. I have it. >> Council Ver something else? Anything? >> Oh yeah. No, but we do need Tony's Garcia. >> Oh, okay. We have a motion from Council Vera. Second. I'm sorry. We have a motion from Councilman I didn't realize there was a motion in there. We have a motion from Councilman Vera, second from Council Manalo on the MOT. All those in favor say I. >> I oppose. Eyes have it. Thank you. Uh, and really quick, every year I always invite the Jewish Community Center Federation to come on International Holocaust Remembrance Day. I so motion for January 22nd of 2026. >> We have a motion from Councilman Ver. Second from >> Councilman Maskc. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Eyes have it. >> And then lastly, um, Morris Lopez, the late Morris Lopez. He was a Tampa Police Department officer who had given all in 1949. He was on 7th and 16th Street. Paul Guzo did a wonderful story on him. um and over in Eore City and I had requested, it's a long story, we already voted on this for um TPD to be working on a marker. They're going back and forth on it, but I've kind of potentially have something um for a um gosh, long week. It's a um oh lord, a plaque a plaque to be put there. So, this is my motion for for because I think it's important. That's an area where people go to party and all that stuff. And I'd love love for them to see that, you know, a a man who was with Tampa Police Department gave everything and also saved the life of a newspaper boy there. It's a it's an amazing story. So, I want a written staff report on that on December 18th. And and then if I'm not satisfied by said written staff report, which I'm sure I will be, a placeholder for January 8th of 2026. Um, so again, the written staff report, I'm sure we'll be fine. Um, but just in case uh because I I'm only here for another year and I want to make sure to do this. Uh, Mr. Lopez who was here, I promised him I'd do that some time ago. >> Second. >> We have a motion for Councilman Vro, second for Council Mock. All those in favor say I. >> I. Oppose. Eyes have it unanimously. Thank you. >> I I was asked as well for fire station 24 report to be heard first under staff reports on December 18th to accommodate the project manager coming from out of town. I was requested by them for that. >> Okay. We have a motion for council on her. All those in favor say I. I opposed. Eyes have it unanimously. Thank you, Council. Councilwoman Young. >> Yes. >> Um I just wanted to share I um I've been going to a lot of different events and things um within the district, which has been really awesome um cuz it's, you know, you think you know the district and then you go out and you learn even more, you meet a lot of people. And um one event that I had an opportunity to go to, it was called, it was in a sulfur springs. Um it was called a 813 stop the violence by um someone her well on we know she's known as Trinidad or her name is Leseawn. Um but we had um she had an event um at the George Bartholomew Center and it was amazing um you know to hear some of the stories of some of the um moms and and dads um that have lost their um children or loved ones to gun violence. Um but just thinking overall um I had made a post um I posted something on um my social media about just you know the motion that we I made about um um having the report for our next um council meeting and at the end I had posted something that I just wanted to read and it says our community has experienced some very tragic recent losses that have left families in pain. many of us cannot even imagine. Please let us remember to be sensitive to that and continue to keep those families in our thoughts and prayers as we navigate their healing. Times like this remind us how vital empathy and compassion are not just in our policym but in how we show up for one another each day. And I think that's important. Um there is a lot of things that are happening. Um, but I will echo the sentiments of um, Miss uh, Councilman Herk, you know, that we are up here and we see and we hear um, and we talk to a lot of people um, and we're we're hearing you and we're listening and we're doing the best that we can. So, I just wanted to make those sentiments. >> Thank you. Thank you. Very, very well said. >> Council, it's not a motion. Actually, it's CR everybody to get everybody out at 6:00. >> This is one minute for I do want to say this because I can't say this in front of folks. when I um became CRA chairperson, I'd indicated that once we get a district five person, I would allow not allow, that's not the right word, I would be amenal to him or her whenever they're ready um taking over as chairperson. So, Councilwoman um Young, I just say that that whenever you feel ready, please during CRA, let me know. I do not care. So, you know, I do not care. So, whenever you're ready, just let it be known if you so wish. You don't have to say yes or no. Just let me know. Thank you, ma'am. Councilman Carlson. >> Um, a shooting, it's hard. Um, >> I know we have things. We talked about it. >> It, uh, a couple things real fast. Um, I've been asked by the public to get a a written update. So, I'd make on the constructions fees study and the land development fee study. So, I'd like just to make a motion to get a written update, written report update on the construction fee study and land development fee study. Um, since a written report, could we do December 18th? Okay, we have a motion from Councilman Carlson, a second from Councilman Mascalo for the December 18th meeting for the written reports on the two items. All those in favor say I. I oppose. The eyes have unanimously. >> And then um I I'd like to have a you all recommend a workshop. I think I I don't know if we can do January [clears throat] or February or whatever, but I' I'd like to have a a discussion at a workshop about um uh converting the convention center to an enterprise fund andor reporting the costs and expenses in a unified way. >> January, January, >> we're looking for a date. >> I [clears throat] think January is too soon, >> but February >> to have that kind of discussion. >> February is pretty booked. >> Yeah. And we don't have one in March. Um, I mean, April is probably what they're going to tell you is a good time for them anyway. >> Okay. April. >> April 23rd. There's nothing on that. >> We have a motion for that workshop agenda on April 23rd, 2026. We have a second for Councilman Scalco. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. The eyes have unanimously. Thank you. >> Last thing is they're turning off the lights. Um uh we I've asked several This is Council Member um Young's district, but I've had several It affects my district because Harbor Island is here. Um I've had several times you all have allowed us to have staff come before us to talk about the traffic jams in downtown. Um, on Friday night I went to an event at the addition and it took me an hour to get from the from inside downtown to inside the parking lot of the addition. It took me an hour to get out of downtown. And the reason is that they're shutting down roads. Um, you you pull out of the addition, you turn left, it's hard to get on there. And they shut down the road, they won't let you back on the Selman. And and you know, Vic Be when he was here, he said publicly and privately, if they would just stop shutting down the roads and let the lights work, everything would work. I really would like to pass an ordinance that prohibits them from shutting down the roads. But instead, what I'd like to do is is maybe ask them to come one more time. So, I'd like to make a motion to have city staff come before us as soon as possible to tell us how they can prevent the traffic jams in downtown. It's it's completely debilitating. There were several events. It the traffic again backed up all the way to Rome in in August. >> I can't second this, but I would second this wholeheartedly because I I observe the same thing. Okay. Okay. Good. >> Yeah. >> I second that with with two thumbs up. Absolutely. >> I don't know. We don't have a date until the new year. >> Okay. What What do you 5th of February? >> January. I mean, there's there's there's room in January. >> January 5th. >> January 8th has room. January 8th. >> Okay. We have a motion from council Oh, no. Sorry. You're you're >> Thank you. There's a there's a motion from council member Carlson. There's a second from board or chair clen. Any more conversation about this? >> I what I do is I park here and I walk there and I avoid it. But I understand for the general public and they have to come north. So they would have to come this way anyway. >> The problem is you expect the roads to be open a certain way. So you get in line and you drive that way and then they turn you a different way. They force you out into a turn and they force you into worse traffic. >> They even force you uh but near the arena. I mean it's idiotic what's happening and I I don't understand why they why they do that and we have a shortage of police officers. I if anyway we'll talk about it then. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So I have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Okay. >> Thank you prom. Mr. Shelby, you'd like to delay our departure further? >> Yes. For your health for your health and well-being. Okay. Um just uh uh Councilman Vieiraa and uh to get back to his discussion about the CRA. Um I've had an opportunity to talk with um uh Cliff Shepard, your CRA attorney, uh and looking at your bylaws and uh just to let you know that it is city council that makes the appointment. Yes. >> Not the CRA. And in the interest and in the interests of transparency and notice, I would ask that it not be done under new business that it be at a um an agenda item when the time should come that we're able to be able to put it on the agenda to give the public the opportunity to uh know about it in advance and uh and comment on it if they wish. >> Mr. Chairman, I this you're going to this is the right thing to do. May I just for 30 seconds? >> Counc. Uh yeah, I I forgot to say this that if y'all know Rich Reedi who was uh Commissioner Kenhagen's aid, he passed on and so just our sincere condolences to him and his family. I remember he was a um member at Ottawa Baptist if I recall and he was always a nice guy and like he was he was a pro, you know, he really was. And so just to Commissioner Hagen and everybody in the county and uh and Mr. Reed's uh family, just my my condolences. Okay. >> And clerk, are we done with our full agenda? We're all good. You checked off all the boxes. We have a motion to receive and file for Councilman Malco. A second from Councilman Vera. All those in favor say I. >> I. Happy Thanksgiving everybody. We are adjourned. I'm going to go sign those documents because if I don't do it now, this is Riverwalk. [music] Then I think Mayor Martinez ushered in the idea of real redevelopment along the river. the he could the convention [music] center could have gone anywhere. He chose that to redevelop the downtown to be a catalyst. [music] It wasn't until Mayor Greco that the idea came that, okay, Marriott, you want to come and be a hotel, you've got to build this sidewalk out here that we're going to call the Riverwalk. And then Mayor Greco bought Coten [music] Chobi Park, the land that Coten Chobi parks on. And again, we're going to put this sidewalk in this [music] and we're going to call this the Riverwalk. So, we decided that it was time that the Riverwalk came to fruition and that we connect it [music] in a way that also connected the various assets uh within our city. [music] So we said, you know, you know when your end date is as mayor and said, 'Look, one thing that's really important to me is that [music] u one that we have the master plan that we can hand off to future mayors and two that we have that entire stretch from Channelside to [music] the Straz Center permitted with the Army Corps of Engineer, particularly that one area at the Curtis Waterfront Park that went off past the Sherin. >> [music] >> And I said, "That way if money ever comes, it'll be permanent." Well, sure enough, that's [music] exactly what happened because when Mayor Buckhorn was in office, um, and they had the stimulus money,