. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: HELLO, AND WELCOME BACK TO TAMPA CITY COUNCIL. ROLL CALL. >>BILL CARLSON: HERE. >>LYNN HURTAK: HERE. >>GWEN HENDERSON: PRESENT. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: HERE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: HERE. MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE 1:30 PUBLIC HEARING. A MOTION ARE FROM COUNCILWOMAN HENDERSON. SECOND FROM COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. ALL RIGHT, THESE ARE . - QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY REGISTER. HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 65, PLEASE STAND, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND WE WILL SWEAR YOU IN. ANYBODY SPEAKING ON ITEM 65, PLEASE STAND, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND WE WILL SWEAR YOU IN. OKAY, SO WE ARE JUST -- LET'S JUST WAIT A MINUTE. A LOT OF PEOPLE? >> TWO MORE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: OKAY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: GOT TO GET THAT FALL FEELING. IS THAT EVERYBODY OKAY. A NEW ERA. >>GWEN HENDERSON: THEY WERE SIGNING IN. I WAS ON THE ELEVATOR WITH THEM. . >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: LET'S SWEAR IN THE FOLKS THAT ARE HERE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SWEAR THEM IN. [SWEARING IN] >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SHE COUNTS TOO. OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL WE SWORE IN THE FOLKS THAT WERE HERE. SO -- ONE MORE. SORRY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. ALL RIGHT, PURPOSE NOT SWORN IN 30 SECONDS ALSO, PLEASE STAND AND WE WILL SWEAR NEW IF YOU WERE SPEAKING ON ITEM NUMBER 65. [SWEARING IN] >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL BEGIN THIS HEARING. YES, MA'AM. MISS JOHNSON-VELEJ. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: GOOD AFTERNOON AND THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. I AM SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. THIS ITEM NUMBER 65 IS A ALCOHOL BEVERAGE SUSPENSION HEARING FOR THE PROPERTY 7700 COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY CURRENTLY OPERATING AS AN ESTABLISH CALLED GODNREY HOTELS AND CABANAS. IF YOU HAVE KIND OF A SITE MAP HERE IF I CAN GET THE OVERHEAD. IF I CAN GET THE OVERHEAD. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, THERE YOU GO. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: THANK YOU. THIS IS THE SITE OUTLINED IN RED. YOU CAN SEE IT IS A LITTLE PENINSULA THAT IS ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY. TO THE EAST OF THE SITE, WE HAVE SOME OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES AND SOME RESIDENTIAL HERE. WE ALSO HAVE HOTEL AND OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE COURTNEY CAMPBELL DIRECTLY OPPOSITE AS WELL AS SOME RESIDENTIAL. THERE ARE SOME RESTAURANTS HERE. BAHAMA BREEZE IS BACK IN HERE AND WE HAVE MORE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH AND GOING INTO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. SO THIS PARCEL LOCATED AT 7700 COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY HAS BEEN OWNED BY M 2 TAMPA LCC SINCE AUGUST 11, 2021. WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE BINDERS SECTIONB AT TAB 2. M 2 TAMPA LCC THE GODRY HOTEL AND WE CALL IT WATER. BUT IT IS WATR. THERE ARE SEVERAL PERMITS THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THIS SITE. THERE IS FROM THE CITY ORDINANCE NUMBER 5886-A THAT WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED ON MARCH , 1974. SO A 50-YEAR-OLD PERMIT THAT APPROVED THE SALE OF BEER, WINE AND LIQUOR FORCOP FOR CONSUMPTION ON AND OFF THE PREMISE. PAUSE OF THE AGE OF THE PERMIT AND COUNCIL IS AWARE THAT WE DON'T REALLY WET ZONE PROPERTIES LIKE THIS ANYMORE, BUT THIS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE WET ZONING COVES THE ENTIRE PARCEL. SO THE BUILDINGS. THE POOL. THE RESTAURANT. THE PARKING LOTS. THE ENTIRE -- THE ENTIRE PARCEL THAT THIS PERMIT COVERS. NO LIMB TAKES OR CONDITIONS THAT WERE PLACED ON THIS APPROVAL BACK IN 1974. NEXT ORDINANCE 20007-136 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 28, 2007. THAT ORDINANCE APPROVED A PD REZONING ON THE PROPERTY WHICH, AS YOU KNOW, IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVED HOTEL, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES. YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO -- TO SEEK SUSPENSION OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT IN YOUR MINDERS. AND THAT ORDINANCE -- THE FIRST ORDINANCE THAT I SPOKE ABOUT IS EXHIBIT 8 TO THE EXHIBIT OF CONSENT AND ORDINANCE 20007-136 IS EXHIBIT B TO THE NOTICE OF INTENT. THAT ORDINANCE PLACED LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE APPROVAL. THE REZONING FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WHICH IS, AGAIN, THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY. THE ORDINANCE LIMITED THE REZONING TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WAS DATED JUNE 4, 2007. APPEAR COPY OF THE SITE PLAN IS ATTACHED TO THAT ORDINANCE AS EXHIBIT B. AND THEN IN 2017, THERE WAS A REQUEST BY THE THEN OWNER TO DO A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OR A NONSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THIS SITE PLAN. SOB -- AND THAT WAS SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE APPLICATION NUMBER 17-23. SO THAT REQUEST WAS APPROVED BY THE THEN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR GLORIA MOREDA, JULY 17, 2017. THAT SUB CHANGE APPROVAL WAS ATTACHED TO THE NOTICE OF INTENT AS EXHIBIT C. PURSUANT TO THAT REQUEST, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGE WAS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE PURSUANT TO AND SHE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED THE SITE PLAN THAT SHOWED RENOVATIONS TO THE OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREA TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. THAT WILL BE IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE. THIS ADJACENT TO THE WATR. THE RENOVATIONS TO REMOVE TWO KIOSKS, REMOVE THE EXIST VOLLEYBALL COURT, STAGE A AND SHED. CONSTRUCT A NEW POOL AND CONSTRUCT CABANAS ALL TO COMPLY WITH THE REAR AND FRONT PROPERTY SETBACK LINES. PROPOSED A NEW SHADE STRUCTURE WEST OF THE RESTAURANT BUILDING AND EXPAND THE BATHROOMS. SO MISS MOREDA HIM POSE A NUMBER CONDITIONS ON THE APPROVAL, ONE TO REMOVE THE SMALL POOL. SECOND CONDITION RELATED TO SOLID WASTE AND STORMWATER THAT AREN'T REALLY RELEVANT TO THIS. AND THAT WAS A CONDITION AS WELL. ALL THE RENOVATIONS HAD TO COMPLY WITH THE FIRE CODES. AND THEN THE CONDITION THAT IS IMPORTANT AND GERMANE TO THIS MATTER IS CONDITION NUMBER 4. SAYS PRIOR TO A TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENTS CONDUCTED ON THE PROPERTY, THE PROPOSED SPECIAL EVENT MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION DIVISION AND BE SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 27-282.16 AS MAY BE AMENDED. SO THIS IS THE CODE SECTION THAT GOVERNS TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENTS. IT LIMITS THE MAXIMUM DURATION FOR A SPECIFIC EVENT TO TWO WEEKS. AND ALSO LIMITS THE NUMBER OF EVENTS THAT CAN BE HELD TO FOUR PER YEAR ON ANY SINGLE PIECE OF PROPERTY. IF TENTS OR OUTDOOR DISPLAYS ARE GOING TO BE USED, YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN. YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT YOU ARE PROVIDING ADEQUATE PARKING. YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE YOU HAVE ADEQUATE BATHROOM FACILITIES. AND YOU MUST CLEAR ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS FROM THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SPECIAL EVENT IS CONCLUDED. AS PART OF THAT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE APPROVAL, THERE WAS A SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED. AND THOSE NOTES THAT I JUST READ OFF ARE INCLUDED ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THIS. AND YOU CAN SEE I WILL JUST ZOOM IN FOR A QUICK MINUTE. YOU CAN SEE NUMBER 4 IS THE LANGUAGE I READ OFF PRIOR TO A SPECIAL TEMPORARY EVENT AND THE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE SHOWN. ALSO IMPORTANTLY, THE NOTATIONS ON THE -- WERE ADDED TO THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE SITE PLAN AND THE ONE IMPORTANT IS THE NOTE NUMBER 1 THAT SAYS NO TICKETED OUTDOOR CONCERTS EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE OWNER FILES AN APPLICATION AND RECEIVES PERMISSION FOR A SPECIAL EVENT ON THE PROPERTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 27-282.60. THAT WAS THE -- THAT WAS PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. SO THOSE ARE THE THREE CITY APPROVALS, PERMITS THAT ARE ON THIS PROPERTY. MM2 TAMPA THROUGH A RELATED ENTITY HAS A STATE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE. THAT ISSUE IS ISSUED TO M2 TAMPA TENANT LCC, LICENSEBEV ARE, WHICH IS A 4 COP LICENSE THAT CORRESPONDS TO THE WET ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY. STATE LICENSE ISSUED AUGUST 11, 2021. CURRENT AND ACTIVE AND EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 30, 2W0UR -- 2024. IF YOU WOULD TAKE A LOOK, TAB B IN YOUR BINDERS. WE ARE HERE AS A NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUSPEND ALCOHOL BEVERAGE SALES AT THIS LOCATION. 27- 18, THE SECTION THAT GOVERNS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT SUSPENSIONS AND AUTHORIZES THE REVOCATION AND SUSPENSION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES PER CAUSE. THAT CODE SECTION CAN BE FOUND IN SECTION A AT TAB 1. SO UNDER 27-318, SUBSECTIONS,C, WHICH CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 3 OF THAT SECTION IN YOUR BINDERS, IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO SUSPEND OR REVOKE AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE, IT MUST DETERMINE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE HOLDER OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE, THE OPERATOR OF THE ESTABLISHMENT, OR ANY AGENT OR EMPLOYEE THEREOF HAVE OPINION FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED OR CONVICTED OF ANY ONE OR MORE OF 14 QUALIFYING CRITERIA THAT ARE LISTED IN SUBSECTIONS A HOW THAT N. AND THOSE -- THAT MONITORED LIST CAN BE FOUND IN SECTION A UNDER TAB 1 PAGES 4 AND 5. SORRY, PAGE 4. SO THE FOCUS AND BASIS OF TODAY'S HEARING ARE VIOLATIONS OF SUBSECTIONS D, L AND N, OF 317-C-1. D SPEAKS TO THE OPERATION OF THE <font color="#0000FF"><u>STABLISHMENT IN A MONITOR THAT </u></font> REPEATEDLY OR ON AN ONGOING BASIS IS FROM NEGATIVE SECONDARY EFFECTS ON SURROUNDING PROPERTY. THIS INCLUDES BUT NOT LIMITED TO VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE, ORDINANCE OR STATE LAW RELATED TO NOISE, PARKING OR TRASH OR DEBRIS AFTER HAVING RECEIVED REASONABLE NOTICE TO TERMINATE OR CORRECT ANY CONDITION THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF SUCH CODE, ORDINANCE AND LAW. SOB THAT'S SUBSECTIONS D. SUBSECTIONS L. BEEN CONVICTED OF THE EXTERIOR SOUND LEVELS AS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER 14, NOISE. AND THEN FINALLY, SUBSECTIONS N. VIOLATED HI SECTION OF CHAPTER 14 OR CHAPTER 27. ANY CONDITION, LIMITATION OR RESTRICTION IMPOSE $BY THE COUNCIL OR THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OR ANY OTHER SECTION OF THE CITY OF TAMPA CODE RELATED TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. SO THIS AFTERNOON, WE WILL PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS INDEED VIOLATED THOSE THREE SUBSECTIONS OF 27-318-C-1. AND I JUST WANT TO SPEAK FOR A MOMENT ON NOTICE JUST TO CONFIRM THAT THE CITY HAS COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN 27-318, SUBSECTIONS, D. THAT PRIOR TO SUSPENDING AN AB PERMIT, COUNCIL MUST HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF THE HEARING MUST BE SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL VIA PROPERTY OWNER AND BUSINESS OWNER 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. THE CITY COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS BY SENDING A NOTICE OF THIS HEARING ON JUNE 28, 2024 SO I WOULD LIKE TO START OFF WITH -- I KIND OF WANT TO GO BACKWARDS. SO WE WILL START WITH NUMBER N, WHICH IS, AGAIN, THE VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 14 OR CHAPTER 27. AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, I WOULD LIKE TO CALLER RICK COTTON, WHO IS THE CITY'S CURRENT ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO COME FORWARD TO TESTIFY ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVALS. >>ERIC COTTON: GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. ERIC COTTON, LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. I HAVE BEEN SWORN. PARROT SOME OF WHAT SUSAN INDICATED. OLDER ORDINANCE ADOPTED IN 1974. SUSAN INDICATED PRIOR ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL GENERALLY COVERED THE ENTIRE PARCEL. WET ZONE FROM PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE. THE KEY TO THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE ISSUE THAT HAS BROUGHT US BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE APPLICANT TO GET A TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENT WHEN THEY HAVE A OUTDOOR TICKETED EVENT. SO THE LANGUAGE SUSAN SHOWED ON THE ELMO JUST A MOMENT AGO. THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY THANKS HAS APPLIED FOR SOME SPECIAL EVENTS. DECEMBER 20 1, I ISSUED A LETTER TO THE PROPERTY OWNER LETTING THEM KNOW THEY MAY BE IN POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF THEIR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE AND, THEREFORE, THEIR ALCOHOL BY NOT GETTING THE TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENTS. IN JANUARY -- DECEMBER OF 2021, APPLIED FOR A SPECIAL EVENT FOR NEW YEAR'S PARTY. ANOTHER SPECIAL EVENT NEW YEAR'S PARTY IN 2024. AND SUBSEQUENT TWO MORE SPECIAL EVENTS THEY APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED. NOT TO SAY THEY HAVEN'T HAD OTHER EVENTS ON THE PROPERTY, BUT WE HAVE SOUGHT OUT AT LEAST FOUR TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENTS SINCE THE LETTER I SENT ON DECEMBER 22021. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: SO IS YOU SUB CAN HE SEQUENT TO THAT LETTER THAT MR. COTTON TESTIFIED. TEMPORARY SPECIAL PERMITS PURSUANT TO THE CONDITIONS. WE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EVENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED WHERE THE OWNER HAS NOT SOUGHT A TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE APPROVAL AND THOSE CONDITIONS. SO WE DO HAVE -- THERE ARE THREE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES THAT -- WHERE ORDERS HAVE BEEN ISSUED BASED ON VIOLATIONS OF THOSE CONDITIONS. WE HAVE THE FIRST ONE WAS -- SO THIS IS CASE NUMBER C.O.D. 21-4580. YOU CAN SEE I HIGHLIGHTED AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER TO M2 TAMPA LCC. CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER FOUND THAT BETWEEN DECEMBER 19, 2021 AND JANUARY 5, 2022. 1700 COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY PROPERTY WAS IN VIOLATION OF TAMPA CITY CODE. THAT VIOLATION WAS OF SECTION 27-282.16, THE TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT. YOU CAN SEE AT THE BOTTOM, THE HIGHLIGHTED LANGUAGE. CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER FOUND THIS WAS AN INREPUTABLE IRREVERSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE EVENT ALREADY HAPPENED. NOTHING TO TO DO CORRECT THAT. AND THERE IS A NOTATION HERE IN ALL CAPS. PROPERTY MUST TO ITS PD AND REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE GOING FORWARD TO CONTINUE SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS FOR ALL FUTURE OUTDOOR TICKETED EVENTS. AND SPECIAL MASTER IMPOSED A $1500 FINE FOR THOSE VIOLATIONS. LATER ON IN 2022, THERE WAS TWO MORE CASES. FIRST ONE WAS COD 22-2075. ORDER ISSUED OCTOBER 24, 2022. THAT ORDER FOUND M2 TAMPA LCC VIOLATION OF CITY CODE FOR EVENTS BETWEEN MAY 14, 2022 AND OCTOBER 19, 2022 AT 1700 COURTNEY CAMPBELL BOULEVARD -- I AM SORRY, CAUSEWAY. AND, AGAIN, THIS WAS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY AGAIN THE CITATIONS -- OR THE CODE CITATIONS ARE LISTED HERE. WE SEE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 27-282.16. TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENTS. CODES ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER FOUND THAT TICKETED OUTDOOR CONCEPTS HAVE OCCURRED AT THE PROPERTY AND FUTURE TICKETED HAVE BEEN PROMOTED FOR THE APPROVED SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, CONDITIONS, THE PROPERTY OWNER FAILED TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS. AND THEY WERE ORDERED TO CEASE ALL TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENTS UNTIL THEY MAKE APPLICATION AND GET APPROVAL FOR THE EVENTS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION OFFICE. AGAIN, THE FINDING WAS THAT THIS VIOLATION WAS IRREPUTABLE. AND SO THE SPECIAL MOTHER, PURSUANT TO HIS AUTHORITY ORDERED A FINE OF $15,000 IN THAT CASE. THIRD CASE ON THE SAME DAY WAS FOR A DIFFERENT EVENT. THREE DIFFERENT EVENTS THAT THESE THREE SEPARATE ORDERS ARE NOW BASED ON. SO THERE WAS ANOTHER EVENT. FOR CASE NUMBER 22-2076. THAT WAS FOR AN EVENT THAT HAPPENED BETWEEN MAY 15, 2022 AND OCTOBER 19, 2022 AT 7700 WEST COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY. FINDINGS OF FACT THAT M2 TAMPA LCC WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF TAMPA CODE. SECTION 282.216. PTEMPORARY SPEU CAN SEE THE SAME LANGUAGE WAS REITERATED IN THIS ORDER AS THE PRIOR ONE THAT WAS JUST DISPLAYED THAT THEY HAVE TICKETED OUTDOORS CONCERTS AND PROMOTE THEM ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT GETTING THE TEMPORARY SPELLINGS PERMIT. SPECIAL MASTER REPEATED EACH SPECIAL EVENT MUST HAVE AN APPROVED THAT WILL BE FOUR PER YEAR. AND THE FINDING, AGAIN, OF A FINDING WAS IRREPUTABLE AND INCAPABLE OF CORRECTION AND, AGAIN, IMPOSED $15,000 FINES. TOTAL FINES IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 1,50 -- 31,500. THAT WAS OCTOBER OF 2022. AND HERE WE ARE IN OCTOBER 2024 AND THESE EVENTS CONTINUE TO OCCUR WITHOUT OBTAINING THE PROPER PERMITS. SO THAT IS THE BASIS. THIS PROPERTY OWNER HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE APPROVAL OF THEIR ZONING, AS WELL AS THEIR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THAT THEY HAVE PREVIOUSLY FAILED TO OBTAINED TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS. AND CONTINUE TO NOT OBTAIN THOSE PERMITS. SO THAT IS THE FIRST BASIS UNDER SUBSECTIONS N. THE SECOND BASIS, CONVICTION OF THE EXTERIOR MAXIMUM SOUND LEVELS AS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER 14, NOISE. BACK IN APRIL, APRIL 30 OF 2023, THERE WAS A CITATION ISSUED TO JOSHUA HUGHES AT 7700 COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY. YOU CAN SEE THE ADDRESS HERE. AND THE CHARGE WAS UNREASONABLY EXCESSIVE NOISE OF A PROPERTY AFTER WARNING AND THE PROPERTY NOT BEING IN YBOR OR THE CHANNEL DISTRICT. COUNCIL WILL RECALL THAT YBOR AND THE CHANNEL DISTRICT MEASURED BY A DECIBEL AND EVERY OTHER AREA IS ON A PLAINLY AUDIBLE STANDARD. THIS OFFICER WENT A DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE WATER RESTAURANT LOCATED ON THIS PROPERTY, AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE I HIGHLIGHTED THAT THE OFFICER MEASURED FROM WATR WHERE THE OFFICER HEARD MUSIC AT THE BAHAMA BREEZE PARKING LOT 2260 FEET AWAY ON THE SORE SIDE OF THE COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY. FOR RESIDENTS THAT DON'T FREQUENT THAT AREA, I HAVE, AGAIN, THE PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED IN RED AND BAHAMA BREEZE IS OVER HERE WITH THE PIN MARK -- WHERE MY PEN IS POINTING RIGHT NOW. THIS CASE WENT TO TRIAL -- OR WAS PROSECUTED UNDER -- IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, COUNTY COURT UNDER CASE NUMBER 23-IN-00189-A. WENT TO TRIAL ON JANUARY 8 OF 2024, AND MR. HUGHES WAS TRIED AND FOUND GUILTY BY A JURY OR THE COURT FOR A VIOLATION OF SECTION 14-154-A, UNREASONABLY EXCESSIVE NOISE FROM A PROPERTY AFTER WARNING AND MR. HUGHES WAS ORDERED TO PAY A FINE OF $238. SO THAT IS THE SECOND BASIS CONVICTION OF THE MAXIMUM EXTERIOR SOUND LEVELS AS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER 14, NOISE. SO I KNOW WE HAVE A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN THE AREA. AND I WOULD LIKE TO -- WITH COUNCIL'S PERMISSION TO HAVE THEM COME FORWARD NOW BECAUSE THEY CAN PROVIDE TESTIMONY RELATIVE TO THE THIRD BASIS FOR THIS NOTICE OF INTENT WHICH IS NEGATIVE SECONDARY EFFECT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTY. I BELIEVE -- I KNOW THERE IS -- MISS ROBERTS HERE, I BELIEVE, AT LEAST. AND I WOULD ASK YOU TO COME FORWARD AND MAYBE EVERYONE ELSE CAN LINE UP ON THE SIDE TO BE HEARD. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WILL THIS BE PART -- >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: PART OF THE CITY'S -- >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THEY THEN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMENT? OR THIS WILL TAKE CARE OF ALL OF THAT? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: THAT IS UP TO COUNCIL. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: AFTER THEY COME UP AND GIVE THEIR TESTIMONY. WE WILL HEAR FROM THE OTHER SIDE, THEIR ATTORNEYS -- >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: I WILL FINISH OUT MY STATEMENTS AND YOU WILL HEAR FROM THE OTHER ATTORNEYS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THEY WILL BE ABLE TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED AS WELL? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: SURE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I A SPEAKER WH SE SPEAKER WA >>MARTIN SHELBY: I DON'T THINK YOU WILL NEED IT NOW. HOW LONG DO YOU NEED TO SPEAK? ARE YOU GOING TO QUESTION HER OR JUST HAVE HER SPEAK. HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU WISH? AND HOW MANY DO YOU HAVE ON THE FORM HERE? COUNCIL -- >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SHE IS PART OF THE CITY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: PART OF THE CITY'S CASE. THEN WE WILL JUST -- >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THAT CAN BE HELD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT LATER IF SHE IS GOING TO SPEAK NOW. >>MARTIN SHELBY: YOU WANT TO JUST LET HER SPEAK. THAT IS THE DETERMINATION OF COUNCIL. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: LET'S RESOLVE THIS ISSUE FIRST. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN CLENDENIN. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: IF SOMEONE IS PART OF THE CASE, THEY ARE PART OF THE CASE. NO SUCH THING AS PUBLIC COMMENT. LIKE HAVING SUSAN UP. EITHER SHE IS PART OF THE CASE OR PUBLIC COMMENT. WE NEED TO RESOLVES THAT ISSUE. >>GWEN HENDERSON: SHE WILL PROBABLY SAY EVERYTHING SHE NEEDS TO SAY. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: SO WE HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING ONE BITE OF THE APPLE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN CARLSON. >>BILL CARLSON: IS EACH SIDE GOVERNED BY A TOTAL AMOUNT OF TIME. SO THEY CAN SPEAK AS LONG AS THEY WANT. >>GWEN HENDERSON: SHE SAID SHE ONLY NEEDS SIX MINUTES. >>BILL CARLSON: I AM ASKING BECAUSE WE NEED TO SET THE PARAMETERS TO UNDERSTAND. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: THIS IS PART OF -- >>BILL CARLSON: ASKING OF THE FORMAT. >> I AM ALISON ROBERTS. I RESIDE AT 3926 AMERICANA DRIVE. AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK YOU WITH TODAY. I WILL TRY TO USE THIS. ALL RIGHT, PERFECT. SO I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THE SUMMARY THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU AND AGREE WITH AND HAVE SEEN MUCH OF THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL CONTEXT IN TERMS OF THE TIMELINE, IMPACT, AND REALLY, HOW WE GOT HERE. SO EXACTLY THREE MONTHS FROM THE DAY OF THE PROPERTY'S PURCHASE BY M2, THE ABOVE COMPLAINT WAS LOGGED INTO ACELA. THE CITY ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION RELATED TO ZONING ROUGHLY THREE WEEKS LATER, WHICH YOU CAN SEE WITH THIS FIRST RED ARROW ON 12/16/21. THE YELLOW DOTS THAT HOPEFULLY YOU CAN SEE -- YOU CAN SEE ON HERE, THEY REPRESENT CONCERTS, TICKETED CONCERTS GOING ON DURING THIS PERIOD. THREE DAYS -- THANK YOU. THREE DAYS AFTER THAT NOTICE OF VIOLATION, ANOTHER COMPLAINT WAS RECORDED IN ACELA BECAUSE THE CONCERTS CONTINUED AND THE SYSTEM WORKED AS IT SHOULD. MR. PIPER AND COUNSEL FOUND THEMSELVES IN A HEARING IN JANUARY. THE ENTIRE SWORN TESTIMONY IS TRULY WORTH LISTENING TO, BUT GIVEN OUR TIME LIMITATIONS I AM JUST GOING TO PROVIDE AN EXCERPT OF THAT. SO MR. PIPER, AS YOU SEE -- OR MR. PORTER, SORRY, EXPLAINED HIS CLIENT'S CONFUSION. HE ASKED FOR LENIENCY. HE INDICATED A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING GOING FORWARD AND A WHOLE SECOND DEGREE OF THE SUGGESTION THAT IS DEDICATED TO TO THE.IC AND AGREEMENT AROUND GETTING TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS GOING FORWARD. SO IN JANUARY, 2022, WE ARE GOOD. BUT IN MARCH 2022 IS THE KICKOFF TO WATERS CONCERT SEASON AGAIN. AND THE UNDERSTANDING REACHED IN JANUARY DID NOT STOP WATR FROM GOING INTO FULL GEAR. AFTER MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE IN MARCH -- IN APRIL OR IN MAY BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THE CONCERTS GOING ON. A TICKETED CONCERT. WATR ASKS A FTN, WHICH WAS THEN USED TO CONTINUE CODE VIOLATION HEARINGS UNTIL AFTER THEIR CONCERT SEASON WHICH WAS OVER IN SEPTEMBER. 2022 HAD FIVE MONTHS OF REPORTED NONCOMPLIANCE. IN 2023 SPRING BREAK, THAT STARTED UP AGAIN. AND EVERYTHING STARTS AGAIN AND NUMEROUS DELAYS WITH FDN AND DRUG OUT THE ENTIRE 2023 CONCERT SEASON AND THE CITY DID NOT ENFORCE THE ZONING VIOLATIONS AT AT THIS TIME. ANOTHER YEAR. 2024 STARTED AGAIN. THIS IS NOW AFTER THE FDN. AFTER WE HAVE GONE IN FRONT OF YOU AND GO AT FORMAL DECISION. 2024. HERE WE GO AGAIN. SPRING BREAK STARTS. THE ENTIRE CYCLE. AGAIN, NUMEROUS DELAYS AND ASSOCIATED TACTICS AND HERE WE ARE AGAIN FOUR DAYS AFTER THE END OF THEIR CONCERT SEASON. TWO YEARS SINCE WE FOUND RELIEF AND EVEN THE $35,000 FINE HAD NO EFFECT AND THE BEHAVIORS CONTINUED UNABATED TODAY WE ARE TALKING OF SUSPENSION OF LIQUOR LICENSE AND LIQUOR SALES, I SUPPORT THIS WHOLEHEARTEDLY BUT ONLY HAS MEANING DURING THEIR CONCERT SEASON. AND I LOOKED UP FOR THE INFORMATION, GODFREY CABANA HAVE 2.1 STARS RATING OUT OF FIVE. IT WAS KNOWN TO BE DIRTY AND MOLDY, DRUG INFESTED AND ALLEGED DRUG PROSTITUTION. THE BAR AND RESTAURANT IS A GHOST TOWN UNLESS THE CONCERT SEASON IS GOING ON. THAT IS WHY TIMING IS IMPORTANT HERE AGAIN, THIS ISN'T REALLY HARD TO FIGURE OUT. THE REST OF THE WORLD KNOWS THAT THESE ARE CONCERTS. TICKETMASTER HAS DEEJAYS LISTED UNDER THE CATEGORY OF "CONCERTS." THE SAME -- THE SAME PERFORMERS. AND WHY DOES IGNORING THE LAW AND PROCESS MATTER? SO ACCORDING TO WATR'S LEGAL COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF MR. PIPER. SINCE PIPER PRODUCTIONS, INCREASED PROFESSIONALISM, FEWER COMPLAINTS. AND IN 2021. SWORN TESTIMONY. AND A LOOK AT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED SINCE THAT STATEMENT IN 2021. I REVIEWED TPD'S CALLS FOR SERVICE OVER ONE YEAR IN 2022 AND A PORTION OF 2023. AND HERE IS WHAT I FOUND. 159 REPORTS OF DISTURBANCE OF MUSIC THE PERIOD OF LESS THAN TWO YEARS. 714 EVENTS OVER THE PERIOD OF LESS THAN TWO YEARS INCLUDING BAR CHECKS AND THAT KIND OF THING. THE ABOVE ANALYSIS DOESN'T INCLUDE OTHER PRECIOUS RESOURCES LIKE FIRE RESCUE AND OTHER CITY OF TAMPA'S OFFICIALS' TIMES. MULTIPLE CALLS FOR RAPE, SEXUAL BATTERY, PERSON IN CRISIS, GUNS, BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND A VARIETY OF OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES. AND I WILL ALSO SHARE WITH YOU THAT MULTIPLE PEOPLE HAVE TOLD ME THEY FEEL THREATEN BY MR. PIPER AND ONE WITNESS BACKED OUT THIS MORNING BECAUSE SHE IS TERRIFIED. 2014 AND 2015 SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES WITH MR. PIPER. SET UP CHECKPOINTS ON THE CALENDAR TO COINCIDE WITH THE CONCERT SEASON AT THIS LOCATION. ALLOWED FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION AND ONLY THEN DID THEY COME INTO COMPLIANCE OF ASK THAT THE CITY AGREE ON AN EXTENSION AND CHECKPOINTS. CAN RESTORE THE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND QUALITY OF LIFE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND PROVIDE SOME SOLACE WHOSE LIVES HAVE BEEN PLACED IN JEOPARDY OR FOREVER CHANGED. THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU. WHO IS THE NEXT SPEAKER? YES, MA'AM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE EVERYONE, MY NAME IS KA KATIE HEKCKERD. DANA POINTS FOR OVER TEN YEARS AND I'M HERE BECAUSE I AM CONCERNED OF THE SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY. ON A RECENT AFTERNOON, I WAS OUT FOR A BICYCLE RIDE WITH MY HUSBAND AND OUR TWO CHILDREN, AGED FIVE AND EIGHT. ENJOYING A BEAUTIFUL RIDE ON THE COURTNEY CAMPBELL NEAR THE WATR. ON THE COURTNEY CAMPBELL TRAIL NEAR COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY LOCATED IN FRONT OF WATR. WAITING FOR THE LIGHT TO CHANGE TO CROSS THE ROAD THAT THE INTERSECTION, A GROUP OF YOUNG WOMEN WERE ATTEMPTING TO CROSS THE STREET DEPARTING WATR WITH A STEADY STREAM OF PEOPLE DEPART, WATR. AGAIN THIS IS MID AFTERNOON. YOUNG WOMEN WERE SO INTOXICATED THAT ONE FELL DOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION. AND WITH AS TO INTOXICATED SHE COULD NOT STAND BACK UP AGAIN AND ADDITIONALLY HER FRIENDS WERE SO INTOXICATED THEY HAD A DIFFICULT GETTING HER ON HER FEET AND OUT OF THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION. I WAS CONCERNED I WAS GOING TO LEAVE MY CHILDREN AND THE BICYCLES ON THE EDGE OF THE STREET TO ENSURE THAT NONE OF THESE YOUNG WOMEN WERE HIT BY A CAR FORTUNATELY THEY WERE AND DEPART WATR, THE VAST MAJORITY WERE VISUALLY INTOXICATED AND WALKING TO THE NEARBY PARKING GARAGE PRESUMABLY TO DRIVE HOME. GIVEN THE SHOCKING LEVEL OF INTOXICATION OF THE CROWD MY FAMILY AND I DID NOT FEEL SAFE. WE WERE CONCERNED OF A CAR SWERVING OFF THE ROAD AND INTO THE SIDEWALKS HITTING US ON OUR BICYCLES GIVEN THE LEVEL OF INTOXICATION. I DIDN'T THINK WAS A GREAT ENVIRONMENT FOR MY CHILDREN EVEN THOUGH IT WAS LATE AFTERNOON. RATHER THAN CONTINUING OUR RIDE, WE MADE THE SAFE DECISION AND RODE HOME. I ONLY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO RIDE THE BEAUTIFUL TRAIL IN THE MORNINGS AND I HAVEN'T RETURNED AT ALL ABOUT MY CHILDREN. THAT INCIDENT LEFT ME FEELING UNEASY ABOUT THAT AREA AND WORRY OF POTENTIAL DRUNK DRIVERS IN THAT AREA AT ANY TIME OF DAY. DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO ADDRESS THE PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES STEMMING FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR T TIME. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WHO IS NEXT? STATE YOUR NAME. >> BRIAN ROBERTS, AMERICANA DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY TWICE AS FAR AS THE PARKING LOT WHERE THE OFFICER HEARD OF NOISE. JUST -- I AM GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS VERY QUICK. THE OWNER OF WATR PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY 11 AUGUST OF 2021. SINCE THEN, I BELIEVE THERE HAS BEEN ROUGHLY 162 CONCERTS. IN A LITTLE OVER THREE YEARS. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE PD ALLOWS FOR FOUR TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENTS, TWO WEEKS LONG, MAXIMUM USE SATURDAY AND SUNDAY FOR CONCERTS THAT WOULD BE 16 A YEAR. JANUARY 5, 2022, THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY SAID TO THE MAGISTRATE THEY UNDERSTOOD THE PD REQUIRED THEM TO FILE A TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS TO HOLD CONCERTS. SINCE AUGUST 11, I ONLY FOUND TWO -- YOU FOUND FOUR. I FOUNTAIN ONE FOR NEW YEAR EASE EVE ON 2021 AND ONE FOR 2023. IF MY COUNTS ARE ACCURATE, OVER 160 IRREPAIRABLE VIOLATIONS SINCE THE OWNER HAS TAKEN POSSESSION. I WILL HIGHLIGHT THE CONCERTS BEFORE AND AFTER RESOLUTION 889. I SET THIS PDF TO YOU GUYS, BUT YOU CAN LOOK UP ALL THE DATES OF ALL THE CONCERTS THESE WERE CALL FROM THE SMUGMUG.COM WHERE PIPER PRODUCTIONS HAVE THEIR MATERIALS. THIS WILL BE MARCH THROUGH MARCH 6 ARE 2023. SEVEN CONCERTS, APRIL 7-23, NINE CONCERTS. MAY 6-MAY 29, 2023. NINE CONCERTS. 6/3/23 THROUGH 7/25/. 7-1 THROUGH 7-29, 11 CONCERTS. 8-5 THROUGH 8-4, 11 CONCERTS. RESOLUTION 23-889 GOES OFFICIAL SEPTEMBER 29, 2023. TWO TICKETED CONCERTS 9/16-17. 2023. WATR, 2024. MARCH 23 THROUGH APRIL 21, NINE TICKETED CONCERTS. SORRY, APRIL 27 THROUGH MAY 26, NINE CONCERTS. MAY 27-6/29. NINE CONCERTS 6/30 THROUGH 7/28, TEN CONCERTS. 8 HAD BEEN 3 THROUGH 67 OF THIS YEAR, NINE CONCERTS. IN CLOSING, BASED ON THE ANALYSIS I HAVE DONE, PRIOR TO THE RESOLUEPTEMBER 23, TWO PER WEEKEND AND MORE ON HOLIDAYS. AVERAGE WILLING TWO CONCERTS PER WEEKEND AND MORE ON HOLIDAYS. TO ME IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE RESOLUTION 889 HAD MUCH OF THE IMPACT ON THE LAND USE FROM THE CURRENT OWNER. PLEASE HELP. PLEASE TAKE YOUR TIME WHEN APPLYING WHATEVER PENALTY YOU ARE GOING TO APPLY YOU HAVE UNTIL THE END OF MARCH TO FIGURE OUT WHEN TO DO IT. IF YOU APPLY IT BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT. THE BAR IS COMPLETELY DEAD RIGHT NOW. PLEASE TAKE YOUR TIME. THINK THERE IF SOMETHING ELSE YOU CAN PUT IN PLACE TO USE TO APPLY THIS. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A REAL PROBLEM OUT THERE AND THEY DON'T HAVE MUCH OF A THOUGHT FOR WHAT YOU GUYS SAY. THIS WILL BE 2025. NEXT YEAR, THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO A LAND USE CHANGE WHERE THEY MAY ASK FOR COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE. IF THAT GETS STUCK IN THE COURTS, WE WILL BE HERE THIS TIME THIS YEAR GOING, GEE, THEY HAD ANOTHER CONCERT SEASON. PLEASE, TAKE ALL OF THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU DETERMINE WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO AND HOW YOU ARE GOING TO DO IT. THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WHO IS NEXT. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: MR. SPEAKER, ONE SPEAKER FOR THE CITY'S CASE AND ONE SPEAKER FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. >> HI. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY. RENEE SALSMAN. 2936 VERSAILLES DRIVE IN DANA SHORE. TOP GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHERE I LIVE. THIS WILL COME UP ON THE SCREEN HERE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, WE SEE IT. >> THIS IS, OF COURSE, WATR. AND I LIVE ALL THE WAY OVER HERE I CAN HEAR THEIR MUSIC REGULARLY. OUR HUSBAND AND I SPENT $10,000 ON IMPACT WINDOWS TO NOT HEAR WATRR. WE ARE GETTING READY TO SPEND ANOTHER $19,000 SO WE DO NOT HEAR THE LOUD BASS IN OUR HOUSE. BUT MY MAIN POINT IS. I HAVE A VIDEO TO SHOW YOU. THIS IS ONLY AN EX-SERMENT. 40 SECONDS LONG AND IF YOU ALLOW ME TO PLAY IT FOR YOU. IT HAS BEEN DATED WHICH IS VERY HELPFUL 2024. A GOOD REPRESENTATION HOW WATER KICKED OFF THE START OF THEIR 2024 SEASON BUT ALSO A REPRESENTATION OF WHAT HAS CONTINUED THROUGH THE REGULAR SEASON WHICH APPARENTLY JUST WRAPPED UP THIS LAST WEEKEND. ♪ ♪ [MUSIC] AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANY REASONABLE PERSON WHO IS HONEST CAN ARGUE THAT IS NOT A CONCERT. WE HAVE SOME OF THE HIGHEST PAYING TOURING MUSICIANS IN ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY WITH DANCERS, CROWD INTERACTION, INSTRUMENTS, ETC. WE ALSO HAVE TICKETS HERE FOR GENERAL ADMIRATION ASSOCIATED WITH PERIOD OF TIME FOR 2024. AND I WILL JUST BRIEFLY SHOW YOU THE TICKETS AND THE TIME DATES. WE DIDN'T WANT TO PRINT ALL OF THEM OUT FOR YOU, BUT MARCH 23 OF 2024. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, TURN IT OVER. >> I AM SO SORRY. AND THE DATES CONTINUE THERE. PUT THIS DOWN A LITTLE FURTHER. AND I JUST HAVE THREE SHEETS VERY QUICKLY TO SHOW YOU. >>GWEN HENDERSON: YOU ARE GOING TO TOO FAST. >> SORRY. I DON'T WANT TO TAKE TOO MUCH OF YOUR TIME. I CAN TURN ALL OF THIS INTO YOU. I DON'T NEED ANY OF THIS PAPERWORK. WE ALSO HAVE CONCERTS THAT SHOW VIP OPTION AT NEARLY THE GENERAL PRICE OF GENERAL ADMISSION TICKETS. AND HERE YOU WILL SEE THAT THE VIP TICKET IS $65. OOPS. BRING THAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT SO YOU CAN SEE THE PRICE OF THAT TICKET. $65. THE PROMOTER PROVIDED TABLE OPTION WHICH IS SIMILAR TO SPORTING EVENTS, LIKE HOCKEY EVENTS, FOR THE PRICE OF WHAT THE TICKETS ARE FOR. SORRY THAT IS NOT CLEARER. SO ANYWAY, I COULDN'T FIT ALL OF THE PAGES FOR ALL OF THE OPTIONS FOR THE TABLES AND THE CABANA RANGE FROM $175 TO $750 A TABLE. AND HERE IS WHAT I COME TO AN STANDING THROUGH WITH THE NUMBERS OF TICKET SALES, CABANA SALES, TABLE SALES, ALCOHOL SALES. IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT NOT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO INCENTIVIZE COMPLIANCE MAINLY THROUGH FINES AS WE HAVE CONTINUED TO SEE WITH WATR. I THINK AT THIS POINT, THEY PROBABLY JUST SEE IT AS A COST OF DOING BUSINESS, BECAUSE THEY ARE MAKING SO MUCH MONEY. BUT IT ALSO SHOWS WATR'S BLATANT LACK OF RESPECT FOR THE CITY'S LAW AND ORDINANCES. AND I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE IMPOSE THE MAXIMUM SUSPENSION OF WATR'S ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MISS JOHNSON-VELEZ. YOU SAID ONE PERSON FOR PUBLIC COM COMMENT? >> MAY I ADD SOMETHING ALSO. REPEATED TIMES I HAD TO CALL THE POLICE TO TALK ABOUT THE NOISE IN MY HOME THAT WE CAN SEE IN OUR HOME. AND ON ONE OF THEM, ONE OF THE OFFICERS CAME OUT AS THEY ARE ALWAYS SO HELPFUL. MR. PIPER SHOWED UP AT MY HOUSE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS HE WAS STANDING AT ONE OF THE OFFICERS THAT THEY HIRED, BUT IT MADE ME VERY UNCOMFORTABLE THAT I AM CALLING TO MAKE A COMPLAINT, AND THIS MAN SHOWS UP AT MY HOUSE. ALSO ONE OTHER TIME I WENT THERE AND I SAID, LISTEN, OBVIOUSLY IN THE LAST TEN YEARS, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN VERY FAR WITH YOU. JUST BE A BETTER NEIGHBOR AND TURN DOWN THE MUSIC. JUST, YOU KNOW, CALM IT DOWN. TURN DOWN YOUR BASS A LITTLE BIT. HE KIND OF GOT IN MY FACE ALL PUFFED OUT AND SAID I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HERE AND PLAY IT AS LOUD AS I WANT. I SAID YOU HAVE NIGHT SHIFT WORKERS, BABIES, PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEARBY. I SAID WHEN I GO OVER TO MY FRIEND'S HOUSE, HER WINDOWS AND DOORS ARE LITERALLY VIBRATING BECAUSE YOUR BASS IS SO LOUD AND THE MUSIC IS SO LOUD. I WANTED TO END ON THAT NOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ, LEGAL DEPARTMENT. AGAIN, CHAIR, A COUPLE OF HOUSEKEEPING THINGS. ITEMS ON THE ELMO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD AND I HAVE MISS ROBERTS' DOCUMENTS THAT SHE SHOWED AND MR. ROBERTS. AT THE CONCLUSION OF MY REMARKS I WILL HAND IT OVER TO MR. SHELBY FOR THE RECORD. THE CITY BELIEVES ESTABLISHED VIOLATIONS OF EXCEPTION 23-318-C-1, SUB CONNECTION D, SUBSECTIONS L AND SUBSECTIONS N BASED ON TESTIMONY YOU RECEIVED AT THIS HEARING AT THIS POINT. THE CITY IS ASKING THAT CITY COUNCIL FIND A FIRST VIOLATION. YOU RECALL PURSUANT TO THIS SELECTION, FIRST VIOLATION CARRY AS PENALTY OF 30-DAY SUSPENSION. AND PROGRESSIVE PENALTIES FOR SECOND AND THIRD VIOLATIONS. SO WE ARE ASKING FOR A FINDING OF CITY COUNCIL FOR FIRST VIOLATION IN POSITION OF THE MAXIMUM SUSPENSION PERIOD OF 30 DAYS AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS HEARING. AND IF -- IF THAT IS COUNCIL'S PLEASURE, I CAN ASSIST WITH THOSE TIME FRAMES BECAUSE WE WILL NEED DATES AND SOMETIMES FOR THE SUSPENSION. I BELIEVE MISS BATSEL IS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND ONE OTHER RESIDENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMENT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: AT THIS TIME MISS BATSEL AND THEN PUBLIC COMMENT. MISS BATSEL, PLEASE COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME. YOU MAY BEGIN. >> ELISE BATSEL, STEARNS, WEAVER, MILLER FOR THE RECORD. CAN I HAVE THE PRESENTATION PLEASE? BEFORE I GET STARTED, I DID WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM NOT JIM PORTER. AND WE ARE NOT HERE REPRESENTING PIED PIPER. WE ARE HERE REPRESENTING THE LANDOWNER M2 TAMPA WILL,LC. WITH ME IS NATHAN LOGAN, THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF M2. FLEW FROM CHICAGO TO BE HERE AT THIS HEARINGS. BEFORE WE GO TO THE PRESENTATION, THE OWNER IS HERE TO FULLY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND NOT TO CONTEST ANY EVIDENCE THAT IS PRESENTED INTO THE RECORD TODAY. WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO BE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER TO APOLOGIZE TO THE CITY COUNCIL, TO APOLOGIZE TO STAFF WHO SPENT ENDLESS HOURS ON THIS MATTER AND TO APOLOGIZE TO THE COMMUNITY. MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE ARE GOING TO INFORM YOU AS OF THIS MORNING, THE RELATIONSHIP AND AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OWNER AND PIED PIPER HAS BEEN TERMINATED. THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT FACTS WE WANT TO YOU KNOW BEFORE WE START INTO ANY INFORMATION T TODAY. WHAT AM I DOING WRONG? IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WORKING. THAT'S OKAY. I HAVE A PAPER COPY. ALWAYS GOOD TO HAVE A PAPER COPY JUST IN CASE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >> THAT'S GOOD -- >>LYNN HURTAK: THERE IT IS. >> OH, HERE. >> THERE IT IS. IT IS WORKING NOW. >> THANK YOU. YOU KNOW WHERE THE PROPERTY IS. I AM NOT GOING TO REPEAT WHAT MISS JOHNSON-VELEZ ALREADY INDICATED TO YOU. THE OUTLINE OF THE AB PERMIT. I DID WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT OBVIOUSLY THINGS ARE GOING TO CHANGE OUT THERE. BUT I WANTED TO COUNCIL TO UNDERSTAND AND KNOW THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE LOCATION OF ALL OF THE AREAS WHERE THERE ARE MUSIC VENUES AND OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT VENUES. I DID WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THERE ARE ADDITIONAL VENUES CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBORS AND CLOSE TO DANA SHORES. SO IF THERE ARE NOISE VIOLATIONS IN THE FUTURE, WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A LOT OF INFORMATION HOW WE ARE GOING TO PROTECT, BUT WE WANTED TO GEOGRAPHICALLY TO UNDERSTAND THAT DASH THAT M2'S PROPERTY IS NOT THE ONLY PROPERTY OUT THERE THAT DOES HAVE ENTERTAINMENT AND OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT. MISS JOHNSON-VELEZ ALREADY WENT OVER THE PERMIT HISTORY. I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TIMELINE, BECAUSE FROM AN OWNERSHIP PERSPECTIVE, OCTOBER 13 HAPPENED WHEN YOU ALL HAD THE FORMAL DETERMINATION. ERIC COTTON DETERMINED THAT IT THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OUTDOOR TICKETED CONCERTS INCLUDED THE DEEJAY EVENT THAT WAS APPEALED TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CAME BACK TO YOU WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATION AND YOU FOUND YOUR FINDING. SEPTEMBER 11, 2023, MR. PORTER AND MIKE PIPER FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERCIORTI OF CITY OF TAMPA'S DECISION AND THAT ORDER IS IN LIMBO AND NOT SHOWN CAUSE. NO NEW NOISE VIOLATIONS OR ANYTHING ISSUED SINCE THAT PERIOD OF TIME IN SEPTEMBER OF 2023. SO WHEN THEY GOT THE NOTICE OF INTENT SAYING THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE TODAY ABOUT SUSPENDING THEIR LICENSE, THEY WERE ACTUALLY SURPRISED. I WILL TELL YOU THAT -- AND NATHAN WILL TELL YOU THAT OWNERSHIP HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH, BUT THE NOTICE OF INTENT GOT THEIR ATTENTION AND WE ARE HERE TODAY TO TURN THINGS AROUND AND MAKE THAT RIGHT. SO THE OWNER IS COMMITTING TO SEVERAL THINGS. ONE, WE ARE GOING TO RESOLVES ANY KIND OF CODE ENFORCEMENT LI NEXTNS ON THE PROPERTY A THIS TIME. WE JUST GOT INVOLVED. WE UNDERSTAND OUTSTANDING FINES THAT WILL BE PAID AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BUT DEFINITELY WITHIN 30 DAYS AND NEED TO KNOW THE PAYOFF AMOUNTS WITH THE CITY. WE WILL RESOLVE ANY OUTSTANDING PERMITTING ISSUES. RECENTLY DISCOVERED THROUGH OUR DUE DILIGENCE THERE IS A STAGE OUT THERE UNPERMITTED. WE CONFIRMED WE WILL BE TAKING THAT STAGE DOWN. WE WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO GET A DEMO PERMIT FROM THE CITY TO DO THAT. SO I DON'T HAVE A TIMING ON HERE. WE WILL WORK AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE BUT REQUIRE THE CITY TO ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE, ISSUE A DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTIONO PERMIT AND WORK WITH ERIC IN BUILDING PERMIT AND CAMARIA TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS. FIRST TO ESTABLISH A OWNER POINT-TO-POINT WITH THE CITY IF THERE ARE ANY ISSUES AND THINGS DON'T GO EXACTLY AS PLANNED SO THERE WILL BE NO MORE MISCOMMUNICATION. WE DO HAVE A REQUEST IN LIGHT OF THAT INFORMATION. WE WOULD REQUEST A 15-DAY SUSPENSION. THIS IS AN OPERATING HOTEL. THERE IS A RESTAURANT INSIDE. THERE ARE INDOOR EVENTS AND EVENTS THAT DON'T INVOLVED PIPER -- PIED PIPER ENTERTAINMENT HAPPENING AT THE HOTEL. SO WE WOULD REQUEST A 15-DAY SUSPENSION TO THE OUTDOORS ONLY. OBVIOUSLY THE NOISE ISSUES RELATE TO OUTDOORS AND HOW IT IS CARED OVER WATER. BUT WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD, YOU KNOW, ALLOW ALCOHOL TO BE SERVED IN THE RESTAURANT INSIDE. WE CAN REGULATE THAT THROUGH SIGNAGE JUST LIKE DO YOU ANYWHERE WHERE THE LIMITS OF ALCOHOL BEVERAGE. YOU CANNOT CARRY ALCOHOL BEYOND THAT POINT. WE WOULD RESPECTFUL LY ASK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. WE ARE NOT CONTESTING THE INFORMATION OR NOTICE OF INTENT. WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: YES. SO YOU TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU ARE THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING. AND THE PROPERTY. TERMINATED THE CONTRACT WITH -- >> THE AGREEMENT. IT WAS NOT A WRITTEN CONTRACT. IT WAS ARRANGEMENT AND AGREEMENT WITH PIED PIPER. YES. >>LYNN HURTAK: SO NO WRITTEN -- NOTHING WRITTEN THAT SAYS THIS HAS STOPPED. >> NO, BUT NATHAN LOGAN, THE GENERAL COUNSEL CAN CONFIRM THAT ON THE RECORD FOR YOU. HE DELIVERED THAT NEWS TO MR. PIPE THEY ARE MORNING. WE WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY TO YOU ON THE RECORD. >>LYNN HURTAK: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR TESTIMONY ON THE RECORD AND ALSO WOULD PROBABLY LIKE TO HAVE SOMETHING WRITTEN. I THINK THAT WOULD -- >> SINCE THERE IS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT WE CAN PUT A LETTER TO HIM AND SUBMIT IT TO THE CITY WITHIN 30 DAYS, IT WILL BE SAYING THAT THE ARRANGEMENT -- NOT A WRITTEN ARRANGEMENTS. IT HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON MANY YEARS BEFORE OUR CLIENT OWNED THE PROPERTY. SO THERE IS NOTHING TECHNICALLY TO TERMINATE OTHER THAN THE VERBAL ARRANGEMENTS THAT THE HAS BEEN HAPPENING. BUT I WILL HAVE NATHAN TESTIFY ON THE RECORD AND WE WILL BE HAPPY TO WRITE A LETTER TO MR. PIPER OUTLINING THIS AND COPY CITY COUNCIL. >>LYNN HURTAK: OKAY. >> NATHAN, DO YOU WANT TO PROVIDE THAT TESTIMONY. NAME AND DRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> NATHAN LOGAN, GLENVIEW, ILLINOIS. 1515 LONG VALLEY ROAD. I ACTUALLY SPOKE WITH MIKE PIPER LAST NIGHT AND DELIVERED THE MESSAGE WE WON'T BE HOLD ANYTHING OR EVENTS AT WATRR. HE WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED GOING FORWARD. AS SHE SAID, WE WILL WRITE A LETTER TO THAT EFFECT. THE TESTIMONY TODAY IS LITTLE BIT MOVING. WE UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION A LOT BETTER THAN WE HAD PRIOR. SO THAT IS THE PLAN. >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: LET ME SEE ANY HEARD RIGHT. HEARD EVERYBODY SPEAK IN A LOW VOICE AND I DON'T HEAR VERY WELL. I DON'T COMB MY HAIR VERY WELL EITHER. BUT -- ARE WE SAYING THAT YOU HAD A BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS WITH SOMEONE OR SOMEONE YOU WITH, SOMEONE WITH SOMEBODY ELSE THAT WAS NEVER -- NEVER NOTHING WRITTEN? >> THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING. WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. THESE THINGS WERE ALREADY GOING ON. WE HAVE -- YOU KNOW, WE MANAGE A LOT OF HOTELS AROUND THE COUNTRY. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I AM NOT A LAWYER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AND DON'T WANT TO BE ONE. >> NO, YOU DON'T, SIR. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: BUT IT WOULD BE AN ENORTHERNLY NEWS RESPONSIBILITY TO THE OWNER, LIABILITY. NOT THE VENDOR. >> WE ARE SEEING THAT HERE, I BELIEVE, YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I AM A CRIMINOLOGIST. I AM NOT A LAWYER. THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ANYBODY ELSE? COUNCILWOMAN HENDERSON. >>GWEN HENDERSON: YES, THANK YOU, CHAIR. YOUR COMPANY CAME FROM OUT OF TOWN TODAY TO BE REPRESENTED AT THIS HEARING, CORRECT? DID YOU SAUL KNOW OF THE PROBLEMS IN THE PAST? HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN. >> I DON'T HAVE A TIMELINE IN MY MIND, BUT I KNOW -- LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE BEEN RELYING ON ARE OUR LOCAL PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE PROMOTER THAT HAD BEEN RUNNING SHOWS AT THIS CLUB SINCE BEFORE WE BOUGHT IT. HE HAD WHAT WE DETERMINED TO BE COMPETENT COUNSEL, MR. PORTER, REPRESENTING HIM. AND HE WAS TELLING US, YES, WE GOT THIS VIOLATION AND THIS VIOLATION AND THIS DEFENSE AND THAT DEFENSE. AND WE WERE KIND OF LETTING HIM HANDLE IT BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE HE WAS HANDLING IT. BUT AS 'LEASE POINTED OUT, THIS -- THIS PROCEEDING TODAY GOT OUR ATTENTION AND SO NOW I'M HERE AND SORRY NOR NOT BEING HERE EARLIER. >>GWEN HENDERSON: SEEMS SO LOOSE FOR ME FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE. ESPECIALLY IN REGARDS TO THE ATTORNEY ASKING FOR SUCH A LENIENT, YOU NKNOW FINE. I AM JUST TRYING TO RELATE IT TO THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT THE TESTIMONY HAS BEEN PRESENTED FROM -- FROM THE RESIDENTS OF THE NEARBY FACILITY. AND IT JUST HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A VERY LONG TIME. I AM JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY YOU EVEN HAD TO COME TODAY IF YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. >> I AM NOT SURE HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS. >>GWEN HENDERSON: WHY -- WHAT DO YOU KNOW. HOW ABOUT THAT. THAT MAY BE AN EASIER QUESTION. WHAT DO YOU KNOW. >> WELL, NOW I REALIZE THAT THE PROMOTER WE HAVE OPINION RELYING ON FOR INFORMATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY WAS GIVING US A PARTIAL VIEW OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING. AND THE LEGAL POSITION AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED. >> I CAN SUPPLEMENT THAT TOO -- >>GWEN HENDERSON: I DON'T A SUPPLEMENT FROM THE LAWYER. I WANT TO HEAR FROM HIM. >> SO, I AM SORRY, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION, WHY NOW? WELL, OBVIOUSLY A HOTEL WITHOUT A LIQUOR LICENSE IS AT A BUSINESS DISADVANTAGE. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO RETAIN OUR LIQUOR LICENSE AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THINGS KEEP GOING THE DIRECTION THEY ARE GOING, WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. >>GWEN HENDERSON: DO YOU THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME LEVEL OF PUNISHMENT. DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD ONLY BE 15 DAYS? I CAN'T ASK THAT QUESTION? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MR. SHELBY? >>GWEN HENDERSON: I MEAN, IT IS JUST A MATTER -- >>MARTIN SHELBY: MY SUGGESTION. IT IS A RHETORICAL QUESTION. >>GWEN HENDERSON: IT IS A RHETORICAL QUESTION -- YOU KNOW WHAT, I OBVIOUSLY AM NOT SKILLED AT THESE HEARINGS. I HAVE AN OPINION. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THEY DON'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN. >>GWEN HENDERSON: WE HAVE BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD BEFORE. AND SO I JUST WILL WAIT UNTIL THE END. I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, SIR. >> POINT OF ORDER. WITH RESPECT TO THE LAST QUESTION, WE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY TO PROVIDE TO THE RECORD. >>MARTIN SHELBY: A THIS POINT IN TIME, COUNCIL, IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE YOUR QUESTIONS ASKED AND ANSWERED AND WE WILL GET TO THE OTHER POINTS DOWN THE ROAD, COUNCILWOMAN. >>GWEN HENDERSON: THAT IS TRUE TOO. THAT WAS NOT THE TIME FOR ME TO PONTIFICATE. >> JUST FOR ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION, AGAIN, ELISE BATSEL FOR THE RECORD. WE WERE RETAINED ABOUT THREE AND A HALF WEEKS AGO. WE HAD YEARS' WORTH OF RESEARCH TO DO TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND WHEN. WE DID A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST AND IT WAS SO VAST THAT THE CITY HAD TROUBLE PROVIDING US WITH ALL THE DOCUMENTS. WE STILL DON'T HAVE EVERYTHING, BUT SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ WAS VERY HELPFUL FOR GETTING US SOME CRITICAL INFORMATION FOR THIS HEARINGS. SO WHEN WE SAY WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS IT, THERE IS A LOT OF HISTORY AND A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT WE HAD TO GET CAUGHT UP ON IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY OF THE VIOLATIONS, WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE PROPERTY, AND SO WHEN MR. LOGAN SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, HE IS HERE TODAY BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN PIECING THIS INFORMATION TOGETHER OVER THE LAST THREE AND A HALF WEEKS. AND THAT HE THOUGHT IT WAS BORN ENOUGH TO TALK TO YOU AND BE HERE IN PERSON. SO I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE RECORD AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST, BUT WE DID THE BEST WE COULD TODAY AND GOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO KNOW THAT WE ARE COMING BEFORE YOU SAYING WE ARE NOT CONTESTING THAT INFORMATION. WE ARE ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY. PART OF THAT REQUEST FOR LENIENCY IS, WE ARE -- WE ARE -- WE UNDERSTAND IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY. BUT AGAIN I THINK THE OWNER WAS LED A LITTLE ASTRAY WITH THE RESPECT OF HOW EVERYTHING TRANSPIRED AND MAYBE GOT PARTIAL INFORMATION. THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN CARLSON, MIRANDA, CLENDENIN. >>BILL CARLSON: MISS BATSEL AND UNDERSTANDING EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID OF TRYING TO GET INTO T THIS. TWO QUESTIONS. <font color="#FF0000"><u> WILL TRY TO PUT THEM OUT AT </u></font> THE SAME TIME. I REMEMBER THE CASE FROM LAST YEAR AND I DON'T REMEMBER ALL THE DETAILS OF IT, BUT I REMEMBER IT IN GENERAL. BUT I WONDER HOW -- ESPECIALLY SINCE THE PROMOTER DID NOT HAVE A WRITTEN CONTRACT, I WONDER HOW THEY HAD STANDING AND WHY THE OWNERSHIP DIDN'T COME THEN AND INTERVENE AT THAT TIME. NUMBER TWO, PART OF THAT CASE WHICH YOU TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE WHILE AGO IS THAT -- OR MISS JOHNSON-VELEZ TALKED ABOUT, THIS HAS OPINION A CONCERT VENUE FOR A LONG TIME AND THERE IS AN AGREEMENT THAT ALLOW CERTAIN SPECIAL EVENTS PER YEAR. AND SO I WONDER WHAT THE FUTURE IS OF THIS. ST. IS IT -- IS IT THAT -- DOES THE NEW OWNER THINK THAT -- LOOK AT THIS AS HOTEL AND RESORT AND DOES NOT PLAN TO HAVE THESE BIG SPECIAL EVENTS? OR IS THAT -- THAT THEY -- THEY WANT TO HAVE THE SPECIAL EVENTS, BUT STICK WITHIN THE GUIDELINES THAT WERE SET UP SEVERAL YEAR AGO. >> LET ME GO TO THE OFFICIALS QUESTION FIRST AND THEN ANSWER THE SECOND QUESTION. THE FIRST QUESTION, WHY DID THE OWNER NOT INTERVENE. MY UNDERSTANDING -- AND AGAIN IN THE LAST THREE WEEKS, I WATCHED THE HEARINGS. I READ THE PLEADINGS. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT A JUDGE WOULD SAY THAT PIPER HAS STANDING. THAT WOULD WOULD HAVE BEEN CONTESTED IF THE CITY WENT THROUGH A LITIGATION AND A JUDGE ISSUED AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. SO IT IS AS VERY GOOD AND VALID POINT. WHEN I LISTENED TO THE TESTIMONY OF MR. PORTER AT THAT HEARING. AGAIN I WAS NOT THERE, BUT I DID GO BACK AND LISTEN TO THE VIDEO. I BELIEVE THAT THE ISSUE THAT HE HAD APPEALED WAS THE ISSUE OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE GOING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT THE -- THE FORMAL DETERMINATION QUESTION WAS. AND I REVIEWED IT. I THOUGHT THAT WAS ACCURATE AND VALID AND, THEREFORE, WERE THE GROUND FOR THE APPEAL. THE GROUNDS. BUT IT WASN'T RELATED TO THE UNDERLYING EVENTS. IT WAS RELATED TO THE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORITY AND THAT -- ANYWAY. I HOPE THAT ANSWERED YOUR FIRST QUESTION. >>BILL CARLSON: THE SECOND QUESTION IS MORE ABOUT -- YOU KNOW, THE -- AS YOU THOUGH LAND USE -- LAND ENTITLEMENTS GO WITH THE OWNERS. EVEN IF THIS OWNER DECIDES THEY JUST WANT IT TO BE A QUIET RESORT FOR THE PEOPLE THAT HANG OUT, THAT -- THAT ENTITLEMENT STILL EXISTS IN THAT OUTSIDE AREA. WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS RECORDING THAT? >> I THINK WHAT THE OWNER IS SAYING AND WHAT WE DISCUSSED IS THAT SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ SET FORTH WHAT WAS IN THE CONDITIONS OF THAT NONSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, RIGHT. AND A NUMBER OF SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ABOUT -- IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A SPECIAL EVENT, YOU WILL HAVE TO DO A, B, C, D, AND E, SOMETHING ON NEW YEAR'S EVE, THEY WILL COMPLY TO THE LETTER OF EVERYTHING THAT WAS PUT IN THAT APPROVAL THAT THE BOARD -- OR THE CITY COUNCIL BEFORE YOU APPROVED. AND THAT IS THE IDEA. NOT TO HAVE ANY OTHER -- NOT TO HAVE SOMEONE COME IN AND REPLACE PIED PIPER IF THAT IS THE CONCERN. BUT IF THERE ARE SPECIAL EVENTS TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND COMPLY WITH THEIR REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING. >>BILL CARLSON: SINCE THAT -- THANK YOU NOR SAYING ALL THAT. SINCE THE OWNER'S REP IS HERE CAN HE SAY HE AGREES WITH THAT. >> YES, I AGREE WITH THAT. INTENTION IS TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: OFF FINE ATTORNEY BEEN HERE MANY, MANY YEARS AND NOTHING DISRESPECTFUL TO YOUR CLIENT OR CITY, THERE IS A -- EVEN WHEN ONE BUYS ANY TYPE OF A BUILDING, INCLUDING A HOUSE. CHECKS ALL THE WAY AROUND. DUE DILIGENCE AND ALL THE RECORDS IN THE COURTHOUSE NOTHING POST $. IN THIS CASE, YOU BOUGHT A VERY EXPENSIVE PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND MY PROBLEM WITH MYSELF IS SOMEBODY HAS GOT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENED THERE WHETHER IT IS THE BUYER AND THE ONE WHO BOUGHT IT AND YOU DIDN'T DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE AT THAT TIME. IF YOU DID, IF YOU HIRED AN ATTORNEY, THAT MAYBE YOU CAN GO BACK AND ASK FOR YOUR MONEY BACK. I AM SERIOUS. I AM NOT TRYING IN ANY WAY BLINDFOLD YOU OR LEAVE YOU DOWN ANOTHER PRIMROSE LANE. HAS TO BE SOMEBODY RESPONSIBLE AT THIS HEARING WHERE IT IS EITHER GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY BECAUSE OF ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKEN. BECAUSE IF NOT, THIS CASE CAN BE DUPLICATED 100 TIMES IN THE CITY AND WE ARE BACK TO STATUS QUO. WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING. I AM NOT HERE TO HANG YOU BY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU DID OR DID NOT DO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN CLENDENIN. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I WAS ON THE MINORITY SIDE OF THE DECISION WHEN THIS -- WHEN THE VIOLATIONS CAME UP OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONCERT WAS AND THE SPECIAL EVENTS. I STILL THINK AS A CITY, WE NEED TO BE MORE CLEAR OR CLARIFY THOSE DEFINITIONS THAT -- SO THAT IT IS EXPLICITLY UNDERSTOOD FROM ALL PARTIES THAT ARE DOING BUSINESS FROM THE CITY OF TAMPA WHAT THAT MEANS BECAUSE I STILL, AGAIN. I GO TO WEBSTER AND I SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL SAW. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO CLEAN THAT UP. THAT BEING SAID, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT -- BUT IT IS CLEARLY TRUE THAT THIS PARTICULAR ESTABLISHMENT HAS JUST -- HAS CREATED MORE OF ITS SHARE OF NUISANCE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ACTUALLY -- NOW OFF THIS CLARIFIED IT. NOT THE ESTABLISHMENT. IT WAS A -- SOMEBODY WHO WAS ALLOWED TO USE YOUR PROPERTY FOR THESE EVENTS THAT HAVE CREATED THAT NUISANCE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND NOW THAT -- NOW THAT ENTITY IS NO LONGER GOING TO BE PERMITTED TO USE THE ESTABLISHMENT FOR THAT AND ALMOST MAKES THIS ISSUE MOOT. I AM REALLY CURIOUS WHAT HAPPENED AND ALL THESE VIOLATIONS THAT -- BECAUSE I SEE THEM -- THE M2 IS NAMED IN THEM BUT I DON'T REMEMBER M.2 BEING REPRESENTED HERE. I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST PIPER REPRESENTED HERE DURING THOSE VIOLATIONS. IS THAT -- WAS THAT APPROPRIATE TO ASK? IS IT APPROPRIATE AT THE TIME TO ASK OUR LEGAL WHAT THAT WAS. >> I CAN SPEAK ON BEHALF M2. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME M2 HAD LEGAL COUNSEL PRESENT THEM AT THESE HEARINGS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: YEAH, THAT IS INTER INTERESTING. WE HAVE SOME CLEANUP TO DO ON THE CITY SIDE. NEIGHBORS ARE WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO FEEL LIKE THE SANCTITY OF THEIR HOMES HAVE BEEN VY LATED BY SOME OF THE EVENTS THAT HAPPENED HERE. I THINK WE CAN BETTER ON THE CITY SIDE. WITH WHAT THE OWNERSHIP HAS SAID. I THINK IT IS A REASONABLE RESOLUTION TO THIS THANK FOR THE CLARIFICATION. I AM UPONTIFICATING WHEN WE SAI WE SHOULDN'T BE. UNLESS -- SUSAN, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD TO THAT? >>. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ, LEGAL DEPARTMENT. I WAS ABLE TO CONFIRM. PRIOR CASE WAS A REVIEW OF THE FORMAL DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. IN THAT CASE, MICHAEL PIPER, PIPER PRODUCTION WAS AN AUTHORIZED AGENT BY THE OWNER M2 TAMPA LCC TO SEEK THAT FORMAL DECISION. A CASE WHERE THE PROMOTER, MR. PIPER, WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER TO SEEK CERTAIN APPROVALS OR THINGS FROM THE CITY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MISS SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ, DOES THAT COMPLETE YOUR TESTIMONY? >> YES, SIR, WE ARE FINISHED AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MISS SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ, WHERE DO WE TAKE IT FROM HERE? ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. WE HAD WHITE A FEW SPEAKERS, WITNESSES. COME ON UP. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. GENERAL PUBLIC. >> I AM SANDRINE GETS. I HAVE A SHEET FOR AN EXTRA THREE MINUTES. >> HOW MANY NAMES ARE ON THERE? >>MARTIN SHELBY: JUST ONE. THE EXTRA MINUTE. THAT IS THE FINE PRINT. SORRY ABOUT THAT. ANN TATE. ARE YOU PRESENT? THANK YOU. ONE ADDITIONAL MINUTE FOR A TOTAL OF FOUR. >>MARTIN SHELBY: WHEN THE LIGHT GOES ON. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. THE GREEN LIGHT WILL COME ON. >> THANK YOU, SANDRINE GEZ AND I LIVE AND HAVE LIVED HALF A MILE FROM WATR FOR OVER FIVE YEARS. I WANT TO START BY ADDRESS WHAT HAS BEEN SAID. FIRST I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO YOU -- >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YOU HAVE TO FACE US. >> I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE PEOPLE WHO JUST SPOKE OF CHANGES THAT ARE PROMISED, BUT I WANT TO TELL YOU WHILE THOSE CHANGES THAT I AM VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO ARE WELCOMED, THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HARMED HAVE BEEN HARMED FOR QUITE SOME TIME. YOU HEARD TESTIMONY TODAY AND IT WAS NOT REFUTED THAT SOMEBODY SHOWED UP TO AN -- HAD SOMEBODY COME TO THEIR HOUSE, NOT THE POLICE BUT MR. PIPER. HOW INTIMIDATING IS THAT. WHO WANTS SOMEBODY TO COME TO THEIR HOUSE LIKE THAT? I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY NOW, BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST. I AM -- I AM -- I AM NOT EXCITED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ONLY ASKING FOR 30 DAYS. A 30-DAY SUSPENSION IN MY VIEW FOR ALL OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IS NOT ENOUGH. SO THE IDEA OF GOING DOWN TO 15 IS EVEN WORSE. AND, AGAIN, I WANT TO REITERATE WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, THAT 30-DAY PERIOD NEEDS TO RUN FROM MARCH 15 TO APRIL 15 TO HAVE ANY REAL CONSEQUENCES. EXCITED OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE COMING, THE HARM HAS BEEN DONE. RIGHT. WHO HAS -- THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR BEING AN ABSENTEE OWNER. ONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES IS, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENS THERE. SO WONDERFUL THAT WE ARE MAKING CHANGES GOING FORWARD FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT, BUT THERE HAVE TO BE CONSEQUENCES. THAT IS THE CONSEQUENCES OF BEING AN ABSENTEE OWNER. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I COME BEFORE YOU AND I URGE TO YOU TAKE MEANINGFUL ACTION FOR ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED. FIRST FIRST, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT WHAT IS HAPPENING THERE IS NO OCCASIONAL SMALL NUISANCE. RATHER WHEN THESE EVENTS OCCUR THEY HAVE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON ME, MY NEIGHBORS. THE FACT THAT THEY DRAIN THE RESOURCE HAS IT ALL TAMPA RESIDENTS DEPEND ON, I WOULD SARG THAT THEY HAVE AN IMPACT ON EVERYONE WHO IS IN TAMPA BAY. NOT JUST NOISE. YOU HEARD IT AND ACCEPTED AS TRUE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE CROSSING ROADS IN VERY DANGEROUS CIRCUMSTANCES. BUSINESS MODEL DEPENDED ON LOUD MUSIC, A HUGE CROWD, A TON OF ALCOHOL AND BASICALLY VIOLATING THE LAWS OF TAMPA BAY IN ORDER TO BE SUCCESSFUL. THE CITY OF TAMPA REQUIRES BUSINESSES TO OBTAIN SPECIAL PERMITS FOR REASON TO ENSURE THAT EVENTS ARE DONE SAFELY AND COMPLIANCE WITH CITY REGULATIONS. PUBLIC SAFETY MATTERS. I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU THAT. THAT IS YOUR HERE BECAUSE YOU CARE OF THE CITIZENS OF TAMPA AND THEY SHOULD BE HAVING TO GO THROUGH PERMITS. UNFORTUNATELY, THEY HAVE DELAYED THINGS LIKE I SAID. IT IS GREAT THAT THEY ARE CHANGING. BUT THAT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE HARM THAT HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEARBY AND WHAT WE HAD TO GO THROUGH TO GET TO THIS POINT. I THINK IT IS VERY, VERY NOTABLE AND TELLING THAT NOW WE HAVE THE OWNER WHO IS HERE, WHO IS SAYING WE WILL STOP. I FIRED PIPER. WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A CONTRACT THAT I CAN SHOW YOU. THAT IS VERY NOTABLE. THEY ARE ABOUT TO FACE LARGE SANCTIONS, A REAL PENALTY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN YEARS. PEOPLE HAVE FOUGHT FOR THIS FOR YEARS. IT HAS CAUGHT THE CITY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN PEOPLE COMING HERE, RIGHT. AND YOU -- I HAVE BEEN AT HEARINGS WHERE -- WHERE YOUR RESIDENTS ARE HOPING FOR YOUR DOLLARS -- OUR DOLLARS FOR PUBLIC CITY DOLLARS TO BE SPENT ON COMMUNITY CENTERS AND ROADS AND ALL OF THESE WONDERFUL THINGS. THOSE ARE THE CONVERSATIONS WE SHOULD BE HAVING. WHAT TO DO WITH OUR PUBLIC RESOURCES. THEY ARE PUBLIC RESOURCES AND NEVER MEANT TO HAVE ONE PERSON PROFIT FROM THEM AND THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. THEY PROFIT FROM ABUSING THE LAWS. NEED TO BE REAL CONSEQUENCES. AND THE REAL CONSEQUENCES 30-DAY SUSPENSION STARTING MARCH 15-APRIL 15, 2024. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU INVEST MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE SO OFF SPEAKER WAIVER FORM AS WELL? >> I DO NOT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: NO? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN MANISCALCO COUNCILMEMBERS GIOVANNI MERTANA AND AN ATTORNEY AT BRADLEY. REPRESENT MR. PIPER WHO OWNS AND OPERATES PIED PIPER PRODUCTION THAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT TODAY. YOU HAVE HEARD THAT THIS PROPERTY IS BEING OPERATED WITHOUT REGARD FOR THE CITY ORDINANCES. AND A LOT OF THAT BLAME IS BEING PLACE ON MY CLIENT AND FRANKLY I THINK THAT IS UNFAIR. I WILL TAKE FEW MOMENTS TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU HEARD TODAY. MY CLIENT HAS SPENT A LOT OF TIME, ENERGY AND FRANKLY MONEY TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS AND THE NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS. I HAVE BEEN PART OF THIS DISCUSSION SO I CAN ATTEST TO THAT PERSONALLY. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS PROPERTY HAS A LONG HISTORY. A LONG HISTORY THAT PREDATES MY CLIENT'S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY. I MENTION THAT BECAUSE THE ISSUE PRIOR TO MY CLIENT'S INVOLVEMENT OF THE COLOR AND CONTEXT OF THE FRUSTRATION FROM THE RESIDENTS TODAY. I HOPE YOU TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING YOUR DETERMINATION TODAY. YOU HEARD THAT THERE ARE TWO PRIMARY ISSUES BEFORE YOU TODAY FOR THE AB SUSPENSION HEARING. A FAILURE TO OBTAIN SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS AND A SINGULAR NOISE CITATION. START WITH THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT ISSUE. MY CLIENT HAS ALWAYS BELIEVED HE HAS BEEN OPERATING UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF THE PD. AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TESTIMONY YOU HEARD TODAY. GRANTED, THERE IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN MY CLIENT AND THE CITY OF WHAT THE PD ALLOWS. BUT THAT IS -- THAT IS PENDING IN LITIGATION. IT IS AN ISSUE PENDING ON APPEAL. SO HONESTLY IT BEGS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT ISSUE SHOULD BE PART OF COUNCIL'S DETERMINATION TODAY AGAIN THAT A COURT OF LAW MAY DETERMINE THAT HIS POSITION IS ACTUALLY THE CORRECT POSITION AND MAY VERY MEAN THERE WERE NO VIOLATIONS AT ALL. AS FOR THE NOISE ISSUE, MY CLIENT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE PRESENT OWNERS FOR ROUGHLY THREE YEARS, AND A SINGULAR NOISE CITATION ISSUED. A SINGULAR NOISE CITATION. YOU HEARD TESTIMONY MANY COMPLAINTS, BUT ONLY A SINGULAR NOISE CITATION THAT HAPPENED OVER A YEARS AGO AND SINCE THEN MY CLIENTS HAVE TAKEN STEPS, AV CONS CONSULTANTS, REARRANGED SPEAKERS. PUT LIMITATIONS WHAT CAN OCCUR IN THE PROPERTY. SAYING THERE WAS NO NOISE CITATIONS SINCE THEN, ABSOLUTELY NONE. NOT SOMEONE THUMBING HIS NOSE AT THE LAW. HE PUT INTO ACTION MITIGATION EFFORTS WHICH SEEMINGLY HAVE WORKED. THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU HAVE 30 MORE SECONDS. >> SORRY. I THOUGHT THAT WAS MY TIME TO GO OFF. WHICH SEEMINGLY HAVE WORKED. I ASK THAT YOU TAKE THAT ALL INTO CONSIDERATION. THERE HAS BEEN SOME COMMENTS ABOUT MY CLIENT PERSONALLY. FRANKLY, I -- THEY ARE -- THEY ARE DISAPPOINTING TO HEAR. I THINK HIS EFFORTS TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE CITY'S CONCERNS MAY HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AND MISCONSTRUED BY SOME OF THE RESIDENTS HERE BUT HAS A GENUINE DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS AND OFFERED PERSONAL CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THOSE EXPRESS THAT THEY CAN COME TO HIM BEFORE ANY FORMAL THING. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, MR. SHELBY. >>GWEN HENDERSON: IT IS PUBLIC COMMENT. >>LYNN HURTAK: PUBLIC COMMENT IS OVER. >>MARTIN SHELBY: YOU CAN CALL THEM. YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, MA'AM. NEXT SPEAKER. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, STEPHANIE POYNOR. I HAD NO INTENTION AND HAVING DEJA VU. I AM LIKE, WE HAVE SEEN THIS CRAP BEFORE. I AM LIKE, WAIT A MINUTE. OKAY, SO QUESTIONS TO PONDER. IF THIS WAS A HOUSE DOWN THE STREET FROM YOU AND THE AIRBNB. WOULD YOU SHUT IT DOWN? YOU BECHA, IF YOU COULD, YOU WOULD. WHO IN THE WORLD OPERATES WITHOUT CONTRACTS IN 2024? THAT IS THE CRAZIEST THING I EVER HEARD. I LOVE ME MISS BATSEL AND I BELIEVE SHE IS TELLING YOU GUYS 100% ACCURATE INFORMATION, BUT I FIND THAT VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND AND COMPREHEND. PEOPLE WHO DO BUSINESS WITHOUT CONTRACTS -- WELL, YOU DO THE MATH. BUT I -- I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT WE HAD SPECIAL EVENT LICENSES AND THEN WE DIDN'T HAVE THEM AND WE DID HAVE THEM. YOU KNOW WHAT, EVERY TIME THEY GOT A SPECIAL EVENT LICENSE, THAT TELLS YOU THEY KNEW THE RULES AND WENT AND DID IT AGAIN WITHOUT A SPECIAL EVENTS LICENSE WHICH MEANS THEY DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT THE RULES. THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEM COMES IN. ANY LANDLORD ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH HAVE A BETTER IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON ON THEIR PROPERTY AND THE LAST TIME I SAW IT, WHEN WE SEND OUT NEIGHBORHOOD NOTICES HERE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, WE DON'T SEND IT TO THE TENANTS. WE SEND IT TO THE OWNERS. I AM GLAD THEY ARE HERE TODAY AND I HOPE THEY FIX THE PROBLEM. BUT PLEASE, SEE WHAT THESE NEIGHBORS ARE SAYING. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ANYBODY ELSE FROM PUBLIC COMMENT. COUNCILMAN CLENDENIN, I SAW WHY YOU MICROPHONE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: YES. FOR OUR ATTORNEYS. SO THERE WAS COMMENT THAT -- AND I BELIEVE IT WAS IN TESTIMONY, THAT THE -- THAT THERE IS A CASE PENDING LITIGATION OUTCOME ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THESE EVENTS ARE CONSIDERED SPECIAL EVENTS, IS THAT TRUE? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: YES. LEAPT ME BACK UP A LITTLE BIT. LAST TIME THIS PROPERTY WAS BEFORE COUNCIL WAS ON -- TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER. SO I AM GOING TO BACK UP ONE MORE STEP. IN RESPONSE TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE AND THE -- THE FINDINGS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAD FAILED TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS. MR. PIPER'S ATTORNEY HAD SAID THAT HIS CLIENT ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT HE WAS OPERATING PURSUANT TO THE ZONING APPROVALS. SO MR. PIPER -- OR ON BEHALF -- WITH THE AUTHORIZATION OF M2 TAMPA LCC SOUGHT A DECISION FROM THE ZONED AMORE MR. FOR TO ASK AM I IN COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING CONDITIONS. MR. COTTON ISSUED A LETTER THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE BECAUSE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO GET A TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS AND LIMITED FOUR TIMES A YEAR, ETC., ETC., ALL THINGS LISTED IN THE CONDITIONS. MR. PIPER SOUGHT REVIEW OF THAT PURSUANT TO THE CITY CODE. THOSE REVIEWS GO TO THE HEARING BREANN LEATH HEARING OFFICER DETERMINED THAT CITY COUNCIL UPHOLD THE HEARING MASTER'S DECISION THAT MR. PIPER WAS NOT OPERATING WITHIN THOSE CONDITIONS AND CITY COUNCIL DID, IN FACT, UPHOLD THE DECISION. THERE IS A CASE PENDING FOR ALMOST A YEAR IN CIRCUIT COURT WHERE MR. PIPER IS CHALLENGING CITY COUNCIL'S DECISION, BUT NO ONE HAS OVERTURNEDED THAT DECISION. CITY COUNCIL'S DECISION STANDS AS MADE ALMOST A YEAR AGO THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT BEING OPERATED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING CONDITIONS OR THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE CONDITIONS UNLESS AND UNTIL A DECISION IS OVERTURNED BY THE OUR, THE DECISION STANDS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: IN YOUR LEGAL OPINION, IF THIS COUNCIL MADE A DECISION BASED ON THAT PENDING DECISION AND IT WAS -- OR COUNCIL WAS OVERTURNED IN THE PENDING -- >>LYNN HURTAK: NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE FACTS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: YOUR CASE IS NOT RELATED ON THE SPECIAL EVENTS OR ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT. >>MARTIN SHELBY: ANSWER THAT QUESTION ON THE RECORD PLEASE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THE CITY'S CASE IS NOT DEPENDING ON ANY PENDING LITIGATION? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: NO, IT DOES NOT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: OKAY, THAT'S GOOD. AND ALSO A STATEMENT THAT THERE HAS ONLY BEEN ONE NOISE COMPLAINT FOUND? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: ONE CONVICTION OF A VIOLATION OF SECTION -- OF CHAPTER 14 OF THE CITY CODE WHICH IS YOUR NOISE ORDINANCE. YOU SHOWED YOU THE DOCUMENTATION. A CITATION THAT WAS ISSUED IN APRIL OF LAST YEAR AND THE CASE WENT TO TRIAL. AND THERE HAS BEEN A CONVICTION AND FINDING OF GUILT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: CAN YOU REFRESH MY MEMORY, WHAT BASIS YOU ARE ASKING 30 DAYS SUSPENSION ON. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: ON THE -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THE SPECIFIC INCIDENTS. -- I UNDERSTAND FROM THE CODE, BUT WHAT SPECIFIC INSTANCES YOU ARE ASKING TO FOLLOW INTO THAT CODE. ONE NOISE COMPLAINT. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: THE CODE LIST AS VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 14, THE NOISE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE SHOWN THERE HAS BEEN. WE HAVE SHOWN FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ZONING CONDITIONS OR CONDITIONS THAT WERE PLACE BY CITY COUNCIL OR THE CITY FOR ANY APPROVALS. SOME THAT RELATES TO THE REZONING APPROVAL AND THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE APPROVAL AND SPECIFICALLY THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS TO GET A TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ISN'T THAT WHAT IS PENDING, THOUGH? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT IS PENDING. >>MARTIN SHELBY: YOU MAY WANT TO HAVE TESTIMONY FROM MR. COTTON EXACTLY WHAT THE ISSUE WAS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I THOUGHT IT WAS PENDING. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: THE BASIS IS, THERE ARE THREE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES. THREE CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDERS WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A SPECIFIC FINDING BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THANK THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF SECTION 27-228.16 FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT. THEY WERE ORDERED TO CEASE SPECIAL EVENTS UNTIL THEY GET A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT AND HELD TO FOUR A YEAR. THOSE ORDERS WERE NO, WERE NOT CONTESTED. THEY WERE APPEALED. THREE SEPARATE ORDER CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDERS THAT THE VIOLATION OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: MARTY ASKED ABOUT ERIC COTTON TO COME UP. SO TO CLARIFY, EXACTLY -- >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: THE FORMAL DECISION IS NOT THE BASIS FOR THE NOTICE OF INTENSUSPEND. THE THREE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: AREN'T THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES. AREN'T THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES ABOUT WHETHER THEY NEEDED A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT OR NOT? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: NO, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES WERE ABOUT WHETHER THEY HAD A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT. WHETHER THEY CONDUCTED A SPECIAL EVENT WITHOUT A PERMIT. AND THOSE CASES -- THEY WERE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF THAT BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER BACK IN 2022. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: OH, MY GOSH. I FEEL LIKE I AM MISSING SOMETHING HERE. I WILL LET MY TIME IF RIGHT NOW. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: FORMER DECISION WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES. NOT THE SUBJECT OF THAT. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER SAID, YES, I FIND THEY ARE IN VIOLATION. VIOLATED 287.28216. THEY ARE A REPEAT VIOLATOR BECAUSE THEY NOW CONDUCTED ANOTHER SPECIAL EVENT WITHOUT GET. A REPEAT VIOLATOR AND IMPOSING A $15,000. AND THE THIRD CASE, SAME THING. DIDN'T GET A TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT WHICH YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO UNDER YOUR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF YOUR ZONING. SO I AM FINDING YOU A THIRD VIOLATION AND ANOTHER 15,000 FINE. EXCUSE ME. THOSE ARE THE -- THE THREE CASES THAT FORM THE BASIS UNDER THE HEADING OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. SO YOU HAVE THE NOISE ORDINANCE. YOU HAVE FAILURE TO COMPLY AS EVIDENCE BY THE ORDERS OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND ALL OF THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU HEARD FROM NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS ABOUT THE NEGATIVE SECONDARY IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: SO THIS IS PENDING LITIGATION. THIS PENDING LITIGATION OVERTURNED THE DECISION, THOSE CASES YOU JUST REFERRED TO, WOULD THEY -- WOULD IT BE OVERTURNING THOSE DECISIONS AS WELL? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: NOT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT. THEY WERE FINAL AND NOT APPEALABLE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: OKAY, THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU, CARLSON, HENDERSON AND THEN HURTAK. >>BILL CARLSON: THREE QUICK QUESTIONS. BACK TO THE COMMENT OF ONE VIOLATION A YEAR AGO. DO YOU TRACK OR HAVE A RECORD, WERE THERE OTHER COMPLAINTS SINCE THAT POINT A YEAR AGO? AND HOW MANY WERE THERE? ANY OTHER DATA -- >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: MISS ROBERTS TESTIFIED TO THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE FOR HER TO COME FORWARD. THEY ARE ISSUED THE BY THE TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT. >>BILL CARLSON: DOES STAFF HAVE THAT? SHELBY MY SUGGESTION, IF I CAN, COUNCIL. >>BILL CARLSON: LET ME ASK MY NEXT QUESTION WHEN YOU GUYS FIGURE IT OUT. BECAUSE -- AND THE NEXT ONE -- I WANT TO YOU ANSWER THIS, PLEASE. YOU HAVE GOTTEN UP A FEW MINUTES AGO AND SAID IN THE CASE A YEAR AGO, THAT THIS PROMOTION COMPANY WAS AN OFFICIAL AGENT OF M2 OR WHATEVER THE OWNER WAS. WHEN YOU SAY "THEY WERE AN AGENT" DOES THAT MEAN A WRITTEN DOCUMENT SIGNED BY M2 THAT SAYS TEY ARE AN AGENT. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: YES, THERE IS. >>BILL CARLSON: NOT A VERBAL THING. A WRITTEN DOCUMENT. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: NO, WE WOULD HAVE -- THE CITY REQUIRES IF SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SEEKING AN APPROVAL -- FOR EXAMPLE, IN A REZONING OR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT CARLSON CARE WANT TO MAKE SURE AN OFFICIAL FORMAL -- THEY TALK OF NO CONTRACT. BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS A CONTRACT OR DOCUMENT THERE. M2'S REPRESENTATIVE RECOMMENDED THAT ANY PENALTY BE IMPACTED ONLY ON THE OUTDOOR AREA, NOT THE INDOOR AREA. IS THAT ALLOWABLE? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: I HAVE SPOKEN TO STAFF ABOUT THAT. >>BILL CARLSON: IS THAT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE LAW? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: WELL, I THINK IT'S -- NOT FEASIBLE. IT IS PROBLEMATIC IN THE SENSE THAT THIS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT IF PULL, WET ZONING APPLIES TO THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY. SO FROM AN ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO CORDON OFF WHAT AREA WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO GO AND STAKE IT OUT TYPICALLY, AND MR. COTTON CAN CONFIRM THIS. WHEN WE HAVE DONE THIS IN THE PAST, NEVER A SUSPENSION -- >>BILL CARLSON: CAN I ASK MISS BATSEL ON THIS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MR. SHELBY. CARLSON . >>BILL CARLSON: MAKE YOU CAN COMMENT ON WHAT BOTH OF THEM SAY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: I WANT TO BE CONTRADICT AND MISS BATSEL CAN DEBATE. AND WHAT THE CODE SAYS. THE CODE SAYS SPECIFICALLY TWO THINGS. IS THERE A VIOLATION. AND IF THERE IS, SPECIFIC PENALTIES. SAYS NOTHING ABOUT -- AND YOU HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THE WET ZONING APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE PARCEL. I THINK FOR COUNCIL TO IMPOSE A PENALTY THAT IS OUTSIDE OF WHAT THE CODE SAYS WILL BE TR TRAWL VIRES AND YOU WILL BE ACTING OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW OF WHAT THE REMEDY WOULD BE. THAT IS MY OPINION, COUNCILMAN CARLSON CARLSON GET MESS BATSEL. >> DISAGREE WITH THAT. CODE SAID MAXIMUM OF 30 DAY AND SOMETIMES ISSUE 15 DAYS. THIS COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WHAT THEY SEE FIT WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CODE. >>BILL CARLSON: CASE LAW OR SOMETHING YOU CAN CITE? >> NO, BUT FOR EXAMPLE, YOU DO WET ZONINGS, AND THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS ON THE WET ZONING THAT SAYS INDOOR-OUTDOOR. YOU ARE WORRIED WHERE IS THAT -- IT IS INDOOR OR OUTDOOR. I THINK IT IS CLEAR WHAT INDOOR IS COMPARED TO OUTDOOR. MISS SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ AND I DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE. AND JUST BECAUSE STAFF HAS THEN DONE THIS BEFORE DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO. THERE ARE MANY WET ZONING AREAS THAT YOU CAN CLEARLY DEMARK WHAT AN INDOOR VERSUS AN OUTDOOR AREA IS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, MISS JOHNSON INVELEZ. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ, LEGAL DEPARTMENT. I THINK THE DISTINGUISHING FACT NEVER THIS CASE. APPEAR 50-YEAR-OLD WET ZONING. BACK THEN, CITY COUNCIL -- CITY APPROVED THEM FOR THE ENTIRE PARCEL. SO I APPRECIATE WHAT MISS BATSEL IS SAYING, BUT WE ACTUALLY APPROVED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMITS DIFFERENTLY IN THIS DAY AND AGE. WE ACTUALLY HAVE A SITE PLAN. WE HAVE A LEGAL DESCRIPTION SO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC LEGAL DECISION FOR AN INDOOR OR OUTDOOR AREA SUCH THAT IT CAN BE EASILY IDENTIFIED. IN. IN THIS CASE, IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT I THINK AND MR. COTTON CAN SPEAK TO THAT IN TERMS OF STAFF PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS TO ENFORCE THAT, A SUSPENSION IMPOSED WHICH AREAS AND CORDONING OFF AND I THINK IT WILL BE DIFFICULT FROM A -- FROM AN ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT. HAVE MR. COTTON MAYBE COME UP. >>MARTIN SHELBY: IF I CAN, COUNCIL. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, SIR. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THIS I WOULD LIKE TO BE HAVE BIFURCATED. WITH AN ALCOHOL SUSPENSION, A TWO-STAGE PROCESS. BEFORE YOU GET TO THE PENALTY STAGE. MY SUGGESTION IS -- AND YOU CAN TAKE AS MUCH TESTIMONY AS YOU WANT -- HAS TO BE A FIND BUILDING THERE IS OR IS NOT A VIOLATION. IF THERE IS NO VIOLATION, THIS IS ALL NOT NECESSARY TO DISCUSS. WHAT YOU NEED TO HAVE IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THAT AND CLOSE WHEN YOU TIME COMES TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, IS I WILL ASK YOU TO MAKE A FINDING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A VIOLATION BEFORE YOU GET INTO THE DISCUSSION OF WHETHER AND WHAT AND THE CODE SPECIFICALLY STATES WHICH I SUSPECT WILL BE DISCUSSED EXACTLY THE SPECIFICS SPECIFICS IN THE CODE OF HOW YOU WEIGH AND DETERMINING WHETHER TO SUSPEND OR REVOKE A APPROVAL TO REVOKE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE, THAT CITY COUNCIL SHALL CONSIDER AND CONSIDERED AFTER SUCH A FINDING. WANT TO CLEAR UP ONE OTHER THING FOR THE RECORD AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. IS NOT GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. A EVIDENTIARY HEARING OF THIS A BOARD WITH WITNESSES THAT ARE BEFORE YOU. COLONEL MAY BE CONFUSIG THIS WITH THE RULE THAT SAYS COUNCILMEMBERS SHOULD ENGAGE FROM ENGAGING A SPEAKER IN DIALOGUE DURING GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS IS NOT GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE OFFERING YOU TEST TESTIMONY. ANYTHING WITHIN A TESTIMONY -- NOT TO THIS HEARING, BUT ANY EVIDENTIARY HEARING THAT YOU HAVE. THERE IS SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IN ORDER FOR TO YOU MAKE A DECISION AND SOMEBODY WHO HAS TESTIFIED TO HAVING THAT KNOWLEDGE. YOU CAN ASK A QUESTION TO ELICIT THAT INFORMATION. THAT CAN BE PLACED IN THE RECORD AS COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UPON WHICH YOU CAN BASE YOUR DECISION. SO IS YOU DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO EVERYBODY, BECAUSE SOMEBODY COULD BE OFFERING SOME COMMENT YOU WILL WANT TO ASK A QUESTION. NOTHING TO KEEP SOMEBODY FROM WALKING OUT THE DOOR. THE TIME TO ASK THE QUESTION IS AFTER THEY TESTIFY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILWOMAN HENDERSON AND THEN HURTAK. >>GWEN HENDERSON: THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT. THAT IS WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE THE LAST TIME IS MAKE A DECISION FIRST. I WANT TO ASK, IF THAT IS THE CASE, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE GUY WHO GOT UP TO SPOKE ON BEHALF OF THE -- THE VIOLATOR OF ALL THE PARTIES. THAT. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: MR. PIPER. >>GWEN HENDERSON: YES. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. >>MARTIN SHELBY: I AM JUST ASKING IF HE CAN STATE HIS NAME FOR THE RECORD SO IT IS CLEAR. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >> GIOVANNI GERTANA OF THE BRADLEY LAW FIRM. >>GWEN HENDERSON: ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CLIENT WAS SEVERED WITH M2. >> WE WERE INFORMED THIS MORNING THAT THEY ARE SEVERING THE RELATIONSHIP. >>GWEN HENDERSON: ARE YOU AWARE THAT YOUR COMPANY HAS BEEN IN VIOLATION OF ALL OF THE INFRACTIONS FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME? DID THEY DO ANYTHING TO TRY TO CIRCUMVENT THAT? >> THEY 100 -- MY CLIENT 100% DID TRY TO MAKE EFFORTS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. >>GWEN HENDERSON: THEY STOPPED HAVING CONCERTS WHERE HE WAS CHARGING PEOPLE -- EVENTS THEY APPLIED FOR SOME -- >> YES. HAPPY TOP PROVIDE YOU ADDITIONAL CONTEXT ABOUT -- ABOUT THE VARIOUS EVENTS THAT WERE TESTIFIED TO. >>GWEN HENDERSON: NOT THE VARIOUS EVENTS BUT EVENT FIVE, SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE 10 11 12 ALREADY 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. AWARE OF THOSE EVENTS. >> HE WAS AWARE FOR THE AB SUSPENSION HEARING BETWEEN THAT TIME AND THE HEARING ON THE OTHER TWO, HE FILED THE FORMAL DECISION NOTICE -- THE DEFORMAL DECISION REQUEST. AND THE FIRST VIOLATION IN 2021 WAS HAD. AND BE MR. PIPER DECIDED TO FILE THE FORMAL DECISION LETTER. APPEAR WEEK AFTER THE DECISION WAS MADE, THERE WAS A HEARING ON THE OTHER TWO THAT ARE FORMING THE BASIS OF THIS -- OF THIS -- OF THIS HEARING. TO PROVIDE YOU SOME CONTEXT OF HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT HE WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. FINANCE THAT THE SECOND AND THIRD VIOLATIONS, THOSE FINDINGS, HAPPENED AFTER HE SUBMITTED THE FORMAL DECISION LETTER. >>GWEN HENDERSON: WOULD YOU CONSIDER ANYTHING AFTER NUMBER FOUR A VIOLATION? >> NO, MA'AM, I WOULD NOT. >>GWEN HENDERSON: OH, WOW, OKAY. >> THIS IS A CONTESTED LEGAL DISPUTE THAT IS PRESENTLY ON APPEAL. >>GWEN HENDERSON: UNDERSTOOD. WHAT IS -- SINCE YOU ALL -- SINCE YOUR ORGANIZATION DID NOT HAVE A FORMAL CONTRACT WITH M2. WHAT WAS THE RELATIONSHIP? WHAT WAS THE AGREEMENT? >> MY UNDERSTANDING WAS -- >>GWEN HENDERSON: THEY HE COULD HAVE CONCERTS? >> I DON'T HAVE THE DETAILS OF THE INFORMAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO. I HAVEN'T SEEN THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT. >>GWEN HENDERSON: WHAT ARE YOU HERE TO DO THEN? WHAT ARE YOU HERE TO DO? WHAT IS YOUR INFO? >> SORRY? >>GWEN HENDERSON: WHAT IS YOUR END GOAL IF YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF WHAT YOUR CLIENT -- PURPOSE OF BEING IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH M 2 AND UTILIZING THEIR FACILITIES. I AM JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. >> SURE, I AM HAPPY TO ADDRESS THAT. AFTER WE WERE INFORMED THIS MORNING THAT THEY ARE SEVERING THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CLIENT. >>. >>GWEN HENDERSON: WHAT -- SPSH. >> TO COORDINATE DEEJAYS AT THE HOTEL PROPERTY. THAT WAS THE ARRANGEMENTS. >>GWEN HENDERSON: BEYOND NUMBER FOUR? >> YES, BEYOND NUMBER FOUR. BECAUSE WHAT IS CONTESTED BEFORE COURT IS WHETHER OR NOT HAVING A DEEJAY IS A TICKETED OUTDOOR CONCERT. THAT IS ON APPEAL. WHETHER HAVING A DEEJAY PLAYING MUSIC IS AN OUTDOOR TICKETED CONCERT. WHETHER THERE IS A PROHIBITION TO ALLOW THAT ON A WEEKLY BASIS. THE SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS THAT YOU HEARD WERE PULLED, THEY WERE PULLED ON DAYS YOU WOULD EXPECT TO HAVE LARGE CROWDS, NEW YEAR'S EVE, FOR INSTANCE. AND IT WASN'T BECAUSE THEY KNEW OF THE LAW AND DIDN'T WANT TO COMPLY. THEY ANTICIPATED ON THOSE WEEKENDS HAVING LARGE CROWDS. AND THEY WANTED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. SO THEY SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS FOR THOSE PARTICULAR DATES. >>GWEN HENDERSON: OKAY, THANK YOU. SIR. APPRECIATE IT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. I HAVE QUICK QUESTION FOR MISS BATSEL. >> THANK YOU. >>LYNN HURTAK: HOW CAN WE GUARANTEE THAT DEEJAYS WON'T CONTINUE AT THIS PROPERTY? >> WELL, I THINK UNDER THE SPECIAL TEMPORARY EVENT AND THE PARAMETERS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THEIR ZONING, DEEJAYS COULD ON A VERY LIMITED BASIS CONTINUE. >>LYNN HURTAK: WHAT WOULD THE LIMITED BASIS BE. >> I CAN READ THEM BACK INTO THE RECORD. ALL THE PARAMETERS THAT SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ MENTIONED INTO THE RECORD. >>LYNN HURTAK: SITE PLAN PARAMETERS. >> SITE PLAN PARAMETERS AN TO THE EXTENT A SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER THE CODE. A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT UNDER THE CODE. >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU. I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MISS JOHNSON-VELEZ. WHO PAID THE $31,500 IN FINES? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: NO ONE HAS PAID THOSE YET. >>LYNN HURTAK: OKAY. ARE PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED WHEN THE INDIVIDUAL -- YOU KNOW, THE PERSON LEASING OR USING OR REPRESENTING. SO SAY I OWN A PROPERTY AND THERE IS A RESTAURANT THERE. IF THEY GET A NOISE COMPLAINT OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF VIOLATION, LITTLE GET A NOTIFICATION OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: THE CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE PROVIDED NOTICE. >>LYNN HURTAK: M2 HAS GOTTEN EVERY SINGLE -- HOW ABOUT NOISE. 264 SOME ODD NOISE COMPLAINTS. THEY HAVE RECEIVED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RESPONSE WAS TO THE NOISE COMPLAINTS BECAUSE THOSE ARE PHONED INTO TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT. SO I DO KNOW OF THE ONE -- AND IT SHOWS THE ADDRESS ON THE CITATION. THERE IS A NAME ON THE CITATION. I AM NOT SURE WHO THAT PERSON IS EXCEPT TO ASSUME THEY WERE ON-SITE. AND WHATEVER THE DEFENSE MAY HAVE PROVIDED AT THE COUNTY COURT HEARING WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL IN AVOIDING A CONVICTION OR FINDING OF GUILT FOR THE NOISE VIOLATION. >>LYNN HURTAK: OKAY. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR YOU. HOW CAN WE GUARANTEE, THE CITY, THAT THE DEEJAYS WON'T CONTINUE? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN -- I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN GUARANTEE THAT. >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU. THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE -- THE WOMAN WHO SPOKE FIRST IN THE GREEN SHIRT. I AM SO SORRY. I DON'T HAVE YOUR NAME. >> GEM, ALISON ROBERTS FOR THE RECORD. >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. YOU HAD A SLIDE THAT SHOWED HOW MANY DIFFERENT COMPLAINTS WERE BROUGHT IN. >> OH, I AM SORRY, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT HAD ALREADY BEFORE GIVEN. >> THANKS 'OKAY. >>LYNN HURTAK: I THINK IT SAYS -- YEAH, THAT ONE. AND IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND PUTTING SLIDE BACK ON THE ELMO FOR US. HE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO CLARIFY AND THEN ASK -- NOT THAT PARTICULAR ONE. THERE IS ANOTHER ONE YOU HAD -- WELL, YOU CAN LEAVE THAT ONE THERE, BUT THE ONE THAT HAD ALL THE NUMBERS OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE BEEN CALLED IN. I THINK -- UH-OH -- YEAH, JUST A SECOND. IT LIKES TO RESTART ITSELF EVERY NOW AND AGAIN. IT IS TIRED. YES, THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. COTTON ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE. SO WHEN THESE ARE CALLED IN, WHAT IS THE -- OH, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BECAUSE -- THERE WAS A CALL FOR NOISE -- WHERE WERE THE NOISE COMPLAINTS? SO DISTURBANCE MUSIC, 159. SO WHEN THOSE ARE CALLED IN, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NOISE COMPLAINT AND THEN WHAT WAS FINISHED AT THE MAGISTRATE WHICH WAS THE NOISE -- OOH, I FORGET THE NAME. >>ERIC COTTON: I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. THE COMPLAINTS GO TO TPD AND A CRIMINAL -- >>LYNN HURTAK: MAKE SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ QUESTION. I APOLOGIZE. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ. NOISE COMPLAINTS WITH A COMPLAINT ISSUED BY TPD, THAT IS WHERE THEY GO. RESPONDED BY THE TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT. ON THE WEEKENDS AND AFTER HOUR AND TAMPA POLICE OFFICER WILL ISSUE A CITATION TO APPEAR IN COURT TO ANSWER FOR THE CHARGES. THAT HAPPENED WITH THE NOISE COMPLAINT. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE IS THAT IS FOR -- >>LYNN HURTAK: NO, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN I CALL IN AND COMPLAIN OF A NOISE COMPLAINT. HOW DID IT GET TO THE MAGISTRATE? I GUESS THAT IS WHAT I AM NOT UNDERSTANDING. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: THE NOISE COMPLAINT DIDN'T GO TO THE MAGISTRATE BUT COUNTY COURT. EDGECOMB COURTHOUSE. >>LYNN HURTAK: WHY ONLY ONE GO TO COUNTY COURT AND NOT THE 158 OTHERS. THAT IS WHAT I NEED TO UNDERSTAND. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THE OTHER COMPLAINT CALLS, IF THERE WAS A CITATION ISSUED. >>LYNN HURTAK: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NOISE COMPLAINT AND CITATION. HOW DO YOU GET A CITATION. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS TO ISSUE A CITATION FOR A NOISE COMPLAINT. IN THIS CASE -- WELL, THE CASE UNDER WHICH THE BASES WE ARE SEEKING SUSPENSION. OFFICER WENT AND MEASURED -- AS UNDER THE CITY CODE, YOU HAVE TO BE 100 FEET AWAY. THEY WERE 25 TIMES FARTHER THAN THEY HAD TO BE. >>LYNN HURTAK: WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BY AND LARGE, FOR THESE 159 OTHER EVENTS, IF THE COMPLAINANT HAD ASKED, THEY COULD HAVE POSSIBLY ISSUED CITATION AS SOON AS. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: WELL, IT IS UP TO THE TAMPA POLICE OFFICER WHO RESPONDS TO THE CALL TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY ISSUE A CITATION. >>LYNN HURTAK: OKAY. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: IN THIS ONE PARTICULAR CASE, THEY DID. I AM NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE OTHER CASES. >>LYNN HURTAK: THAT WAS MY QUESTION WHY ONE VERSUS ANOTHER. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD THAT ONE OF THEM WENT TO COURT, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE WEREN'T 100 AND SOME OTHER CALLS. THAT DIDN'T NECESSARILY GET TO COURT AND STILL A COMPLAINT. THANK IS THAT. I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU, MA'AM. DO THESE EVENTS ONLY HAPPEN ON THE WEEKENDS? >> TYPICALLY ON THE WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS. >>LYNN HURTAK: WHAT DAYS OF THE WEEK? >> SO THE TICKETED CONCERTS OCCUR ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY. >>LYNN HURTAK: OKAY. >> THEY DO HAVE REGULAR CONCERTS THEIR ARE NOT TICKETED ON OTHER DAYS. BUT WE DID NOT COUNT THOSE IN ANY OF THE NUMBERS THAT IT WERE PRESENTED. >>LYNN HURTAK: OKAY. >> -- TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >> COULD I ANSWER A COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS. AM I ALLOWED THAT YOU HAVE ASKED. >>LYNN HURTAK: SURE, IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU CAN ANSWER THEM, I AM HAPPY TO GET YOUR RESPONSE. >> OKAY. >> FOR THE RECORD, OBJECTION. WE ARE HEARING A LOT -- FOR THE RECORD -- CAN CAN I BE RECOGNIZED. >>MARTIN SHELBY: FOR THE RECORD, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>LY LEASE BATSEL, STEARNS, WEAVER AND MILLER. WE ARE HEARING A LOT OF TESTIMONY. NO DOCUMENTATION OTHER THAN SECONDHAND DOCUMENTATION FROM SOMEONE NOT IN THE TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT. FROM AN EVIDENCE STANDPOINT, WANT TOP POINT THAT OUT FOR THE RECORD IF THAT IS PART OF YOUR CONSIDERATION, WIRE TO BE THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING. >>LYNN HURTAK: I APPRECIATE THAT. AND IT IS NOT. THAT IS WHY I WAS TRYING TO MAKE THE CLARIFICATION SO I APPRECIATE THAT. >> UNDERSTAND. I AM JUST PUTTING ON THE RECORD. >> I WILL MAKE SURE I DO NOT TESTIFY ABOUT FOR TPD. BUT DO YOU HAVE SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WAS AT THE COURT CASE ON THE NOISE VIOLATION. SO YOU MAY BE ABLE TO GET MUCH MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT IF YOU WERE TO ASK. ALSO, IT WAS ASKED WHETHER THERE WAS ANY -- WAS THIS A SURPRISE. SO THIS COMPLAINT DID GO IN AND I -- IT HAS BEEN THERE AND SOMETHING THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN WORKING ON. BUT CHICAGO REPRESENTATION FOR M2 CAME DOWN. AND THEY WERE PART OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FDN HEARING BASED ON MY RECOLLECTION WHEN WE HAD THAT PRIOR TO THAT DECISION COMING IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL AS WELL. SO JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT ABOUT HOW LONG THEY HAVE KNOWN. I WAS THERE. I TESTIFIED. THEY ARE VERY AWARE OF THE ISSUES AT THAT POINT. >>LYNN HURTAK: I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION TO YOU BASED ON THIS SLIDE. SO YOU SAID THE FORMAL DECISION QUESTION WAS ENTERED RIGHT AFTER THE FIRST COMPLAINT ON 6/14/22. IS THAT WHAT THAT IS SHOWING? THE GRAY TRIANGLE? THE FIRST -- BE IN Q 2. >> CORRECT. THERE WAS A -- CAN I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION -- I WANT TO MAKE SURE I AM ANSWERING IT CORRECTLY. >>LYNN HURTAK: MY QUESTION WAS, THAT IS WHEN THEY PUT THE QUESTION OF THE FORMAL DECISION? >> CORRECT. THAT IS WHEN THEY FIRST MADE THEIR REQUEST. THE AFFIDAVIT WASN'T SENT IN UNTIL US A. SO THERE WAS A DELAY ON THEIR ENDS, BUT THAT'S CORRECT. >>LYNN HURTAK: OKAY. AND SO THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE. THEY -- I BELIEVE FROM YOU ARE IN TESTIMONY EARLIER, YOU TALKED -- YOU TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS ALSO A CHANGE OF LAND USE POSSIBLY INVOLVED IN THIS? OR IS THIS MISS JOHNSON-VELEZ. NO? >> I THINK THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ANOTHER -- BASED ON HISTORICAL PATTERNS OF THE PROPERTY. THAT -- THAT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY STOP FUTURE HERE AND ENFORCEMENT THAT WE HAVE SEEN. >>LYNN HURTAK: I APOLOGIZE, THEN, I MISHEARD. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: GOING BACK FOR 2022, IS IT THE SAME OWNER WITH THE SAME LIQUOR LICENSE? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: M2 TAMPA LCC SINCE AUGUST OF 2021. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THE LICENSE WAS HIS LICENSE? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: CORRECT. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THE GROUP OR THE BAND, WERE THEY HIRED MUSICIAN AS SOON AS. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: THEY HAVE CONCERTS WITH DEEJAYS AND SO FORTH. THAT IS A SEPARATE ENTITY. BUT EVERYTHING THAT THAT SEPARATE ENTITY -- MR. PIPER, A SEPARATE PERSON OR PRODUCTION COMPANY HAS DONE HAS BEEN WITH AUTHORIZATION FROM THE OWNER. EVERYTHING THAT -- >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: NOT A QUESTION IN MY MIND. ANY TIME ANYBODY BUYS SOMETHING, THEY LOOK AT THE PRO FORMA FOR -- NOT TALKING OF THIS CASE, IN GENERAL, THREE YEAR, FIVE YEAR, BEFORE THE THEY BUY SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW, I AM JUST TALKING TO MYSELF. I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE MUM BOW JUMBO HERE - -- MUMBO-JUMBO BUT I CAN'T TALK ABOUT HOW I FEEL. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ANYTHING ELSE SIR? >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THAT'S IT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN CLENDENIN. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I DON'T WANT TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE. BUT I HAVE -- IS IT POSSIBLE FOR Y'ALL TO -- FOR YOU TO YOU CLARIFY. YOU HIGHLIGHTED PARAGRAPHS D, L, AND N. CAN YOU SUMMARIZE THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE USING SPECIFICALLY THAT CORRELATES WITH D, L, AND N? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: YES, SIR, I CERTAINLY CAN. D, WHICH IS -- LET ME JUST FLIP TO THE FREIGHTING THE ESTABLISHMENT IN A MANNER THAT REPEATEDLY OR IN AN ONGOING BASE POLICE HAVE NEGATIVE SECONDARY EFFECTS ON THE PROPERTY. THE EVIDENCE THERE IS THE TESTIMONY YOU HEARD FROM ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA THAT COME TO TESTIFY THIS AFTERNOON. THAT ESTABLISHED NEGATIVE -- WE BELIEVE THAT ESTABLISHED NEGATIVE SECONDARY IMPACTS FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT. NUMBER L, BE CONVICTED OF THE MAXIMUM SOUND LEVELS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER 13. WE HAVE THE COURT FINDING, AFTER A TRIAL, IN JANUARY 2024 OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 14-154 WHICH IS PART OF THE CITY'S NOISE ORDINANCE FOR AN OFFICER BEING ABLE TO HEAR MUSIC FROM 2630 FEET AWAY. AND THEN FINALLY, WE HAVE THE THREE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES, THE THREE CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDERS THAT FOUND A VIOLATION OF -- FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT IS FAILURE TO OBTAIN TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS PURSUANT TO 27-282.16 OF THE CITY CODE. AND I WOULD ADD THAT MISS BATSEL SAID THAT THEY WEREN'T CONTESTING ANY OF THE EVIDENCE. SO IT IS UNCONTROVERTED THAT ALL OF THOSE ARE FACTS. NO ONE CONTESTED THOSE. THOSE ARE ALL ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED FACTS AT THIS POINT THAT THEY HAVE ESSENTIALLY ADMITTED TO. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: SPEAKING OF LAW, MR. SHELBY OR MISS JOHNSON-VELEZ, IF BOTH SIDES HAVE STIPULATEDED TO THAT FACT, THAT THESE VIOLATIONS HAVE OCCURRED. THEN WE ALREADY -- WE REALLY CAN BY PASS THE FINDING OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A VIOLATION? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: NO SHELLS SHELBY NO, IF I CAN. MAY I. SPECIFICALLY THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: IF BOTH SIDES HAVE STIPULATED. >>MARTIN SHELBY: COULD BE ONE COUNTY BASES OF YOUR DECISION, BUT STILL HAS TO BE A FORMAL DECISION AND A DECISION FORMALLY MADE BY THIS BODY BY MOTION OR VOTE OF >>ALAN CLENDENIN: IF WE ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THESE THINGS HAPPENED, SO BEATING THIS DEAD HORSE -- WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE VIOLATIONS HAS OCCURRED? >>MARTIN SHELBY: FRANKLY AT THIS POINT IN TIME THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL BY MS. BATSEL, AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU HEAR OUT ALL OF THE ARGUMENT FROM STAFF -- FROM CITY LEGAL, FANNED THERE'S ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED BY CITY STAFF AND THEN ALLOW MS. BATSEL FOR THAT PERIOD OF REBUTTAL, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER BACK AND FORTH SURREBUTTAL -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION GOING BACK TO THIS PENDING LITIGATION. IS IT PART OF THE STIPULATION ON THE SITE PLAN, AND THAT IS BASICALLY FOR SPECIAL EVENTS? ISN'T THAT WHAT IS BEING PENDING? SO IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE SPECIAL EVENTS, WOULDN'T ALL OF THIS BE WPED AWAY? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: NO, BECAUSE THERE ARE ORDERS FROM THE CITY'S CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDING A VIOLATION THAT WERE NOT APPEALED, SO THOSE ORDERS ARE FINAL. THAT IS WHAT FORMS THE BASIS OF THE PORTION OF THIS CASE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN COURT WITH THAT CASE. IT HAS TO DO WITH FINAL ORDERS IMPOSING FINES IN THE AMOUNT OF 31,500 FOR FAILING TO GET A TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: BUT ISN'T THAT WHAT'S ON THE SITE PLAN? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: THE REQUIREMENT IS ON THE SITE PLAN. THEY FAILED TO DO THAT. THEY WERE FOUND IN VIOLATION FOR FAILING TO DO THAT. AND THEN NO ONE APPEALED THOSE. SO YOU ARE IN ESSENCE AGREEING WITH THAT, IF YOU DON'T APPEAL IT. IF YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO APPEAL IT AND SAY THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE, BUT THOSE ORDERS ARE FINAL, AND THAT IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE PENDING COURT CASE. NONE OF THOSE CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDERS ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS PENDING COURT CASE. FURTHERMORE I WILL REITERATE THAT MS. BATSEL HAS AGREED TO THE EVIDENCE, IS NOT CONTESTING ANY OF THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE YOU. SO I WOULD PROPOSE THE REVERSE OF WHAT MR. SHELBY SUGGESTED SINCE THE CITY HAS THE BURDEN HERE. I WOULD ASK THAT MS. BATSEL BE HEARD FIRST ON REBUTTAL AND THEN IF I MAY CLOSE OUT THE CASE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: OKAY. NO, NO, MS. BATSEL, YOU HAVE YOUR TIME FOR REBUTTAL. >>ELISE BATSEL: FOR THE RECORD. JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS. I JUST WANT TO SCHOLAR IF I MS. JOHNSON-VELEZ DICTATED EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED WAS WITH THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE OWNER. I'M SURE THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE MEANT. I WANT IN THE RECORD WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FINAL FORMAL DETERMINATION AND THE AGREEMENT THEY HAD TO HOLD THE CONCERTS, NOT EVERYTHING WAS WITH THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE OWNER. I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER WHEN YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE MAKING A DECISION ON FOR THIS NOTICE OF INTENT, IT IS THE OLD VIOLATIONS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FROM 2021 AND 2023 THAT FORMED THE BASIS, THE NOISE VIOLATION. WE HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT OTHER THINGS TODAY, BUT WHAT YOU ARE CHARGED WITH IN FORMING YOU'RE DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE SUSPENSION IS WHAT IS REFERENCED BACK TO THE BASIS, THOSE SPECIFIC BASES, AND WE HAVE STIPULATED TO THOSE FACTS. WE PROVIDED YOU WITH THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SO THAT IT METER TO YOUR DECISION ABOUT THE LENGTH AND THE SCOPE OF THE SUSPENSION FOR THE SUSPENSION. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW IF THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE CLOSING REMARKS, MS. JOHNSON-VELEZ. AND THEN WE WILL ASK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: LEGAL DEPARTMENT. COUNCIL, I THINK WE HAVE GONE OVER THE EVIDENCE IN QUITEA BIT OF DETAIL SO I WON'T REITERATE THAT BUT THE CITY BELIEVES THAT WE HAVE CLEARLY SHOWN BASED ON UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS IN FACT A VIOLATION OF SECTION 27-318, BASED ON SECTION D AND SECTION L AND SECTION M, AND I WOULD POINT TO YOU TO PAGE 506 OF THE COPIED THAT I PROVIDED OF SECTION 27-318 WITH RESPECT TO THE MANNERS THAT COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN DETERMINING THE LENGTH OF ANY OF THE SUSPENSION. THE CITY AGAIN HAS ASKED FOR THE MAXIMUM 30-DAY SUSPENSION, AND COUNCIL SHALL CONSIDER, YOU CAN SEE IT LISTED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE, THE GRAVITY OF THE VIOLATION WHICH I BELIEVE WE HAVE SHOWN IT'S PRETTY GRAVE VIOLATIONS PARTICULARLY BASED ON THE SECONDARY IMPACTS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS, ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE VIOLATORS TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION UP UNTIL THIS POINT, WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY SWORN TESTIMONY BY A FACT WITNESS OF ANY STEPS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION. AND THEN PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS AGAIN, THIS WHOLE CASE IS BASED ON PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS. AND THE FACT THAT DESPITE THOSE PRIOR FINDINGS OF VIOLATION, THE TYPES OF ACTIVITY UPON WHICH THOSE WERE BASED HAVE CONTINUED ON NOW FOR THE PAST TWO AND THREE YEARS, AND SO BASED ON ALL OF THOSE, CITY WOULD REQUEST IMPOSITION OF THE MAXIMUM, FIRST OF ALL, A FINDING OF A VIOLATION AS BEING A FIRST VIOLATION, AND WE REQUEST IMPOSITION OF THE MAXIMUM PENALTY OF 30 DAYS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES? >>LYNN HURTAK: BEFORE WE QUIT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT TIMING FROM SOME OF OUR -- FROM SOME WHO PROVIDED TESTIMONY. DOES THE CITY HAVE A POSITION ON THAT? >>ERIC COTTON: LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. THE CITY DOES NOT. I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE NEIGHBORS ARE COMING FROM, THOUGH. AND THAT'S THE PURVIEW OF THE COUNCIL. >>LYNN HURTAK: SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO REOPEN. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: CAN I GET A MOTION TO CLOSE? MOTION FROM MIRANDA, SECONDED B- MR. SHELBY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: AGAIN I AM GOING TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR DISCUSSION TO TAB A-1, AND PARTICULARLY TO PAGE 4 OF 6, TAB A-1, 4 OF 6, REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF SALES FOR CAUSE AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RECORD I AM GOING TO READ JUST A PORTION OF SECTION 27-318. IT SAYS THE CITY COUNCIL, AFTER CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING AS PROVIDED IN THE CITY CODE, IS AUTHORIZED TO SUSPEND OR REVOKE THE ABILITY TO SELL ALCOHOL BEVERAGE FROM PROPERTY, WHICH HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED AND APPROVED, IN ORDER FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO SUSPEND OR REVOKE, IT MUST DETERMINE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER, HOLDER OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE, PRIORITIES OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OR ANY AGENT OR EMPLOYEE THEREOF, HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED OR HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING, ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING. AND AGAIN, YOU HAVE HEARD WHAT WAS HIGHLIGHTED WITH SECTIONS D, L AND N, AND I WOULD ASK THAT COUNCIL NOT CONTEMPLATE ANY PENALTY UNTIL THIS DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY MOTION AND VOTE OF COUNCIL. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SO THE FIRST PART IS THAT THERE WAS OR WAS NOT A VIOLATION, AND THEN WE GO TO THE PENALTY MOTION. >>MARTIN SHELBY: YES. MOTIONS. AND THE FIRST ONE SHOULD BE A FINDING. COUNCIL, AGAIN YOU KNOW WHAT THE BASES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU. >>GWEN HENDERSON: ATTORNEY SHELBY, CAN YOU EXCEED THE 30 DAYS? >>MARTIN SHELBY: WE ARE NOT GOING THERE YET. THAT'S EXACTLY OUR POINT. YOU ARE AT THE FIRST DECISION POINT OF THRESHOLD QUESTION THAT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED BY MOTION AND VOTE AND FINDING OF FACT BY CITY COUNCIL. >>LYNN HURTAK: I WILL TRY AND SEE WHAT YOU PEOPLE THINK. I FIND THAT THE GODFREY HOTEL AND CABANA 7700 COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY HAS VIOLATED AND/OR BEEN CONVICTED OF D, OPERATING THE ESTABLISHMENT IN A MANNER THAT REPEATEDLY OR ON GOING BASIS HAS NEGATIVE SECOND WRITE EFFECT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTY INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE, ORDINANCES, STATE LAW, RELATED TO NOISE, PARKING OR TRASH AND DEBRIS AFTER HAVING ACCEPTED REASONABLE NOTICE TO TERMINATOR CORRECT ANY CONDITIONS THAT IS IN THE VIOLATION OF SUCH CODE, ORDINANCE OR LAW, SUBSECTION L, THEN CONVICTED OF THE EXTERIOR MAXIMUM SOUND LEVELS AS PROVIDED FOR IN CHAPTER 14, NOISE, SPECIFICALLY THE JANUARY 24th, 2024 TRIAL, DEALING WITH SUBSECTION 14-154, AND SUBSECTION N, THE VIOLATION OF ANY SECTION OF CHAPTER 14 OR 27, ANY CONDITION LIMITATION OR RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY CITY COUNCIL OR THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OR ANY OTHER SECTION OF THE TAMPA CITY CODE RELATING TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, MOST NOTABLY THE THREE CASES PREVIOUSLY DECIDED BY THE MAGISTRATE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SO THERE IS A MOTION OF A FINDING -- >>LYNN HURTAK: JUST FINDING OF VIOLATION. I DO HAVE, ONCE SOMEONE SECOND, I HAVE ANOTHER -- WELL, NO, I WILL JUST WAIT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN VIERA. THIS IS THE MOTION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: AND ANY CONDITIONAL FINDINGS THAT YOU WANT TO PUT IN THE RECORD TO SUPPLEMENT THAT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DIVIDE THE QUESTION AND ADD SECTION N AS A SEPARATE VOTE, BECAUSE I AM COMFORTABLE VOTING ON THE FIRST ON D, AND L, BUT I STILL DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE HEARD ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST TO N IS APPLICABLE HERE. SO I WOULD LIKE TWO VOTES. >>LYNN HURTAK: THE ISSUE IS, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TWO SEPARATE PENALTIES. I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR ISSUE WITH N. AND I AM HAPPY TO TAKE N OUT, BECAUSE I THINK D AND L ON ITS OWN MERIT, NOW I DON'T KNOW IF MS. JOHNSON-VELEZ AGREES WITH ME ON THAT. >>MARTIN SHELBY: IF I CAN. NUMBER ONE IS, THIS WAS THE NOTICE OF THESE OF THESE OTHER THREE CITED. IF YOU WISH TO DO IT SEPARATELY, YOU CAN. OF THE MOTION, DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL. CERTAINLY, IF THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT AMONG COUNCIL, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE UNANIMOUS VOTE. >> IT SEEMS IT WOULD BE CLEANER. >>MARTIN SHELBY: IT MIGHT BE ACTUALLY LESS CLEAN IF YOU HAVE A MORE CONVOLUTED RECORD. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WHAT IF WE JUST ELIMINATE THE ONE MOTION AND HAVE THE TWO? >>MARTIN SHELBY: LET'S FIND OUT WHERE WE GO. DO YOU WANT A LEGAL OPINION? >>LYNN HURTAK: DO WE HAVE TO OPEN -- >>MARTIN SHELBY: NO, THEY ARE REPRESENTING THE CITY. YOU ARE FINE. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: I THINK IT'S UP TO COUNCIL TO DETERMINE IF YOU HEARD SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. NONE OF THE EVIDENCE WAS TERRORISTED AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, THEY ARE NOT CONTESTING ANY OF THE EVIDENCE, ANY OF THE BASES ANYTHING. >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU. SO I WILL NOT TAKE -- >>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. COUNCILMAN VIERA WITH THE SECOND. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: REGARDING THE MOTION, I AM FINE WITH IT BUT I DON'T THINK THE SECTION OF LAW SPECIFICALLY WAS MENTIONED. THAT FALSE UNDER 27-318? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: DID YOU SAY THAT? >>LYNN HURTAK: NO, YOU DIDN'T, SO I APPRECIATE THAT. I WILL ACCEPT COUNCILMEMBER MIRANDA'S SUGGESTION TO ADD THAT IT IS SECTION 27-318 .D. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: C-1, D, L AND N. >>LYNN HURTAK: I'M SORRY. D, L AND N. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THERE'S A SECONDER TO THE MOTION? COUNCILMEMBER VIERA WITH THE SECOND. ROLL CALL VOTE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: >>LYNN HURTAK: YES. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: [OFF MICROPHONE] >>GWEN HENDERSON: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED WITH CLENDENIN VOTING NO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: DO YOU HAVE A FOLLOW-UP MOTION? >>LYNN HURTAK: YES, I DID. AND THIS IS GOING TO BE CONTROVERSIAL SO I AM JUST GOING TO PUT IT OUT THERE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU BUT I WANT TO BRING YOU BACK TO THE CODE UPON WHICH YOU MUST BASE YOUR DECISION. AND AGAIN READING FROM 27-318. AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH IT IS, I BELIEVE IT'S C. IT WOULD BE FOLLOWING N. SO IT WOULD BE C. CITY COUNCIL MAY SUSPEND THE ABILITY TO SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR UP TO 30 DAYS FOURTH FIRST VIOLATION. 60 DAYS FOR THE SECOND VIOLATION AND 90 DAYS FOR THE THIRD VIOLATION. UPON THE FOURTH OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION, CITY COUNCIL MAY CONSIDER REVOCATION OF THE APPROVAL, REVOCATION OF THE APPROVAL TO SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO SUSPEND OR REVOKE AN APPROVAL TO SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, CITY COUNCIL SHALL CONSIDER, A, THE GRAVITY OF THE VIOLATION, B, ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION, AND, C, ANY PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY THE VIOLATOR. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMEMBER HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: AND THIS IS THE REASON I CHOSE THIS, BECAUSE I APPRECIATE MR. SHELBY MENTIONING SECTION 27-318 SUBSECTION C -- I'M SORRY, 1, C-1, AFTER -- IN THE AREA TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE -- WHAT WE CAN LOOK AT TO DETERMINE THIS. THE GRAVITY OF THE VIOLATION I FOUND TO BE VERY EGREGIOUS BECAUSE THIS CONTINUES TO HAPPEN OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. BUT THE SLIDE THAT WE SAW, ALL OF THE DIFFERENT EVENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING AND THE PHOTOS OF HOW MANY EVENTS ARE HAPPENING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE VIOLATE HE SHALL TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE THE OWNER DECIDED TO COME IN AND TRY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. AND ANY PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY THE VIOLATOR AND THOSE WE HAVE ALREADY FOUND TAKEN INTO THE RECORD. SO MY SUGGESTION IS A 30-DAY SUSPENSION, BUT FOR 2025, FOR THE WEEKENDS ONLY, FOR MARCH 15-16, 22ND THROUGH 23rd, 29-30, FOR APRIL 5-6, 12-13, 19-20, 26-27, MAY, 3rd AND 4th, THE 10-11, 17-18, 24-25, APRIL 31-JUNE 1, AND THEN JUNE 7-8, 14-15 AND 21-22. BECAUSE TO ME, IF YOU ARE GOING TO WAIT THIS LONG AND JUST BLAME SOMEONE ELSE FOR IT, YOU HAVE GOT TO PAY SOMEHOW. AND I THINK TAKING IT ON THE WEEKENDS, BECAUSE WE CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT THE DJ ISN'T GOING TO CONTINUE. WE CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT. IT JUST MAKES A DIFFERENT DJ TO COME OUT. I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS OWNER HAS TAKEN THIS SERIOUSLY. THEY HAVE COME IN FRONT OF US BEFORE. AND TO ME, THAT IS WHAT I WANT. I WANT THEM TO HAVE ALL OF THESE WEEKENDS TO NOT HAVE ALCOHOL. >>GWEN HENDERSON: I SECOND THAT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HENDERSON. DISCUSSION. >>GWEN HENDERSON: THE PROBLEM WITH ONLY BEING THE WEEKEND IS THE CONCERN FOR SPRING BREAK BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHEN IT'S SPRING BREAK IT'S A FULL CREEK OF YOUNG PEOPLE PARTYING. AND SO THAT KIND OF CONCERNS ME. BUT I WOULD RATHER STICK WITH THIS WEEKEND THING BECAUSE THAT WILL BE VERY HELPFUL. SECOND OFFICIALLY. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: OH, MY. YOU ASKED A QUESTION EARLIER AND I THINK THE ANSWER IS WITH US. HOW DO YOU PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING? I THINK WE HAVE AMBIGUITY. PART OF THE REASON WE ARE HERE TODAY IS BECAUSE OF AMBIGUITY. THERE'S A NOTE ON THE SITE PLAN ABOUT CONCERTS, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A CONVERT, WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF A SPECIAL EVENT? I AM NOT CLEAR THAT IT IS. >>VANESSA MCCLEARY, AND I THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT. I THINK WITHOUT THAT CLARIFICATION IT'S DIFFICULT TO HOLD SOMEBODY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE THINGS. AND I ALSO DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE THAT IT'S OUR JOB TO BE ABOVE PUNITIVE, WHICH I THINK THE ACTIONS THAT WE ARE DOING NONCONSECUTIVE DAYS, WHICH I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT'S IN ORDER, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR IT. LEGAL COUNSEL, IS THERE PRECEDENT FOR NONCONSECUTIVE DAYS? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: LEGAL DEPARTMENT. I DON'T KNOW THAT COUNCIL HAS DONE THE SUSPENSION IN THAT WAY, BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CODE TO PREVENT YOU FROM DOING THAT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THERE'S ALSO IMPACT NOT ONLY ON THE BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, A VIABLE BUSINESS THAT'S PROVIDING ECONOMIC PART OF OUR ECONOMY. YOU HAVE EMPLOYEES THAT WORK THERE. AND I KNOW I SAID IN THE PAST YOU HAVE EMPLOYEES THAT IT'S DEPENDENT ON THEIR SALARY AND THEIR INCOME. THIS IMPACTS THEM AS WELL. SO I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER -- I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS -- AND MR. SHELBY HIGHLIGHTED -- WITHIN OUR CODE THAT WE SHALL CONSIDER THE GRAVITY OF THE VIOLATION, AND ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE CONCERT PROMOTER WHICH CREATED THE NUISANCE, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY CAME IN AND NOTIFIED US AND SAID THEY HAVE ALREADY TAKEN ACTION AND TERMINATED THEIR AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER. SO I THINK THAT'S A BIG OUTREACH. AND I WOULD THINK THE NEIGHBORS -- I MEAN, DO YOU WANT A POUND OF FRESH OR DO YOU WANT A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM? I MEAN, A POUND OF FLESH OR SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM? I THINK WE SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM. THINK WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENT DAD IS A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM. AND CAN WE DO SOMETHING? YES. I THINK THE APPLICANT EVEN GAVE US OPTIONS THAT WERE REASONABLE, YES, THAT'S A PENALTY, 15 DAYS, ONLY TO KEEP THE RESTAURANT DOING AND IT'S A HOTEL, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN OPERATE A HOTEL. THINK ABOUT ALL THE MAIDS. THESE PEOPLE ARE ALL MAKING LOW WAGES AND THEY ARE WORKING HERE, THEY HAVE TO FUNCTION AS A HOTEL. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN OPERATE A HOTEL WITHOUT HAVING A LICENSE. SO WE SHALL CONSIDER A VIOLATION AND ALSO ACTIONS. YES, THEY CAME BEFORE US TODAY AND SAID THEY ARE WILLING TO TERMINATE THIS CONTRACT, THIS AGREEMENT THEY HAD WITH THE PROMOTER, AND I THINK WE CAN CLEAN IT UP FOR FUTURE, DEFINE WHAT A SPECIAL EVENT IS AND DEFINE WHAT A CONCERT IS. AND I THINK THAT'S FOR FUTURE REFERENCE SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM AGAIN. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMEMBER HURTAK. >>GWEN HENDERSON: I DISAGREE WITH YOU. I DON'T THINK THAT THEIR SIDE GETS TO DECIDE WHAT THE SHOULD FIT WITHIN PARAMETERS OF PHYSICALLY CONVENIENT FOR THEM. WE KIND OF GOT INTO THAT THE LAST TIME IN TERMS OF FOCUSING ON THE LIVELIHOOD RATHER THAN THE INFRACTION. AND SO THE HOTEL, WHAT IS A FACT IS THAT THE HOTEL CAN STILL RUN WITHOUT ALCOHOL BEING SERVED. AND THAT IS WHAT IS BEING PENALIZED RIGHT NOW, NOT NECESSARILY THE HOTEL. SO I DON'T WANT US TO BLAME IT OWN THAT AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO RELY ON THAT TO BE A DECISION. AND I DO AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE THE WEEKENDS, BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE INFRACTORS SHOULD NOT DECIDE WHAT THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE WHEN THEY CLEARLY COMMITTED, I MEAN ADMITTED TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT ARGUING WITH ALL OF THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MR. CARLSON, MS. HURTAK. >> POINT OF ORDER. >>MARTIN SHELBY: DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO BE MADE FOR THE RECORD? >> I DO. >>LYNN HURTAK: WE CLOSED THE HEARING. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THAT MAY BE TRUE, BUT SHE IS REQUIRED TO MAKE AN OBJECTION FOR THE RECORD. THAT'S HER PREROGATIVE, HER DUTY FRANKLY. >>ELISE BATSEL: I HAVE AN OBJECTION FOR THE RECORD WITH RESPECT TO THE WEEKEND UNDER CITY OF NORTH MIAMI 286 SOUTHERN 2ND 582 WHICH WAS DETERMINED BY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT IN 1963 THAT SAID YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING TONIGHT ARE IN DEROGATION OF PRIOR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND IF THERE'S ANY TYPE OF AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN OR CANNOT DO, THAT DECISION MUST RESULT IN THE LAND OWNER'S FAVOR, SO THEREFORE I DO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE ACTING WITHOUT THE SCOPE OF YOUR AUTHORITY UNDER THAT CASE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: WOULD YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE A COPY OF THE RECORD? >>ELISE BATSEL: I DON'T. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU. MR. CARLSON, MS. HURTAK. >>BILL CARLSON: I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER CLENDENIN. 30 DAYS, I DON'T KNOW A BUSINESS OF THIS PROVISION, THEY HAVE ALREADY SHUT DOWN THIS PARTICULAR PROMOTER. HOPEFULLY THEY WILL CONTINUE NOT HAVING THE LOUD OUTDOOR CONCERTS. THAT'S THE MAIN THING THAT EVERYBODY WANTED. THERE'S A LONGER TERM ISSUE AND SOLUTION THAT HOPEFULLY MS. BATSEL WILL HELP THEM WITH TO HELP THEM PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE IN THE MEANTIME. THEY DO MEET THE GRAVITY TEST, BASED ON THE TESTIMONY FROM THE CITIZENS. IT WAS PRETTY EGREGIOUS, AND THE ATTITUDES PRESENTED WERE NOT GOOD. AND WE HAD EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS VIOLATION, WHICH WE HEARD BEFORE. BUT WE CAN SEE NOW, AT LEAST AS OF TODAY, THAT THE OWNER IS TRYING TO CORRECT THE SITUATION. 30 DAYS, WE HAVE A CHOICE BETWEEN, I THINK, ZERO AND 30 DAYS. WE DID HAVE A CASE LIKE THIS A FEW MONTHS AGO. BUT FOR ANY KIND OF ESTABLISHMENT, LOSING THEIR LIQUOR LICENSE EVEN FOR A FEW DAYS IS A VERY EXPENSIVE THING. LOSING IT FOR 30 DAYS IS VERY EXPENSIVE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR BUSINESS MODEL IS, WHETHER THEY HAVE MORE BUSINESS ON THE WEEKDAYS OR WEEKENDS. IF THEY ARE MOSTLY A BUSINESS CROWD THAT COMES IN THEN THEY MAY BE HAPPY WE ARE TAKING AWAY WEEKEND. WE DON'T KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THEIR BUSINESS. I WOULD SAY FOR SIMPLICITY SAKE AND FOR CONSISTENCY WE SHOULD GIVE THEM A SET AMOUNT LIKE 30 DAYS. BUT THE OTHER THING HERE, I KNOW IT'S A LONG PROCESS, AND UNFORTUNATELY HAD TO GO THROUGH A LOT OF TURMOIL BECAUSE OF THIS, BUT WE ARE ONE QUARTER OF THE WAY OF HAVING THEIR LIQUOR LICENSE REVOKED COMPLETELY. SO IF THIS HAPPENS THREE MORE TIMES, THIS IS THE FIRST STEP, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS IS NOT JUST WHETHER IT'S 15 OR 30 DAYS OR WHATEVER IT IS, THIS IS THE FIRST OF FOUR STEPS WHERE THEY CAN HAVE IT REVOKED COMPLETELY.% AND MOST PEOPLE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN. AND IN THE OTHER CAUSINGS WITHOUT MENTIONING NAMES, WE CAN SEE GREAT CHANGES IN THE WAY BUSINESSES BEHAVE, AND COLLABORATED WITH THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AFTER SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS. SO HOPEFULLY, WITH A BASIC KIND OF PENALTY, THEY WILL DO THAT. IF THE PROPOSAL IS TO GO OCTOBER WEEKENDS I AM GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT. I WILL VOTE FOR 30 DAYS OR LESS CONSECUTIVELY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMEMBER HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU. I DISAGREE WITH THE TWO GENTLEMEN THAT SIT NEXT TO ME. THE OWNERS HE IS HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THESE ISSUES. THIS HAS BEEN THREE YEARS OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLAINTS, YEARS. AND THIS IS THE BIGGEST TELL OF OWL TO ME. THEY GOT THIS NOTICE ON MAY 31st. WHEN DID THEY DECIDE TO RECEIVER THE RELATIONSHIP? YESTERDAY. IT'S BEEN THREE AND A HALF MONTHS. SO THEY LET THE CONCERT PROMOTER FINISH THEIR SEASON INSTEAD OF ABSOLUTELY CUTTING IT OFF WHEN THEY GOT THE NOTICE. AND THAT'S THE BIG THING TO ME. TO ME, THAT'S THE EGREGIOUSNESS. IT'S NOT, OH, YEAH, WE ARE GOING TO CANCEL THE AGREEMENT WITH THE PROMOTER. YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT ON MAY 31st. IF YOU WERE REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT STOPPING THIS, THAT'S WHEN YOU WOULD HAVE DONE IT. INSTEAD YOU WAIT TILL YESTERDAY. BECAUSE THEY ALREADY GOT A 30-DAY EXTENSION ON THIS. THEY CAME TO US AND SAID, OH, OUR OWNER WON'T BE AVAILABLE. SO WE WERE NICE ENOUGH TO MOVE IT. IF WEIGHED KNOWN AT THE TIME THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE MOVING TILL AFTER THEIR CONCERT TIME, THEN I MIGHT HAVE CHANGED MY VOTE. BUT I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. SO TO ME THAT IS THE EGREGIOUS PART OF IT, AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO -- IF THIS DOESN'T GOT THROUGH, MY OTHER RECOMMENDATION WOULD DO THE MONTH OF SPRING BREAK, WHICH WOULD BE MARCH. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMEMBER CLENDENIN. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: YES, IT'S NOT JUST ENOUGH TO FIX THE PROBLEM BUT WE HAVE TO BE EXTRA, EXTRA PUNITIVE IN THIS. I THINK WHAT I WOULD SAY WE DIDN'T HAVE EVIDENCE THAT SAID WHAT KNOWLEDGE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAD WAS NEVER PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE, COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO US, AS FROM WHAT DEGREE OF KNOWLEDGE THEY HAD ABOUT THINGS HAPPENING. CLEARLY, IF THE PROMOTER WAS STANDING BEFORE US, WE WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. BUT AS FAR AS THE PROPERTY OWNER WITH THE -- >>LYNN HURTAK: WE GET THE ANSWER. I ASKED MRS. JOHNSON-VELEZ AND SHE SAID PROPERTY OWNERS RECEIVE NOTIFICATIONS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: AGAIN, WE DID NOT HAVE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE OWNER ACTUALLY KNEW, HOW MANY VIOLATIONS, I MEAN ALL OF THE DETAILS OF ALL OF THIS. I DIDN'T HEAR IT IN MY LISTENING TO THE TESTIMONY. I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT THIS AGAIN. I THINK COUNCILMAN CARLSON SAID THIS IS SOMETHING THAT OWNERS DON'T WANT. THEY DON'T WANT THE FIRST STRIKE ON THE RECORD, BECAUSE THREE MORE AND THEY ARE DONE. SO WE DON'T DO THIS VERY OFTEN, BY THE WAY. I MEAN, THIS IS A VERY RARE OCCURRENCE FOR COUNCIL TO GO THIS FAR ON LIQUOR LICENSES. I THINK PROVIDING ANYTHING, EVEN IF IT'S ONE DAY, IF IT'S TEN DAYS, 15, OR EVEN UP TO 30 DAYS, ANY ONE OF THOSE, IT'S AN EQUAL PART BECAUSE THE FIRST STEP OF A FOUR-PART PROCESS. SO I THINK BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE OWNERS CAME IN TODAY AND TOOK PROOF POSITIVE STEPS THAT WOULD RECTIFY THE SITUATION AND MAKE THE SITUATION BETTER, I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE AN IOU TO TIGHTEN UP WHAT OUR DEFINITION OF A CONCERT IS. THE NEIGHBORS TALKED ABOUT CONCERT. I THINK IT'S STILL UP IN THE AIR ABOUT WHAT A CONCERT IS, AND WHAT DOES A DJ -- IS A DJ CON SENATE I THINK THAT'S SUBJECT TO DISCUSSION. SPECIAL EVENTS, AGAIN I THINK WE NEED TO TIGHTEN THESE DEFINITIONS UP SO WE HAVE CLEAR UNDERSTANDING. BU IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT WE SHALL CONSIDER, THE GRAVITY OF THE VIOLATION, ACTIONS TAKEN TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION, PREVIOUS VIOLATION, THE ONE NOISE COMPLAINT FOR SURE, 100%, I AGREE WITH IT. THAT'S WHY I WOULD VOTE ON THE FIRST TWO VIOLATIONS. BUT I THINK OFFERING A 15-DAY SUSPENSION EFFECTIVE WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS I THINK WOULD BE ADEQUATE AS A FIRST STEP TOWARDS THE FOUR-STEP PROCESS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMEMBER VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. SO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER GOT THE NOTICE TO ME IS NOT QUITE AS RELEVANT AS THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS OBVIOUSLY -- I WANT TO USE THE WORD SAVVY, SOPHISTICATED. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE EQUIPPED WITH SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE SUCH AS THEY HAVE KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE FLOWN THAT SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE IS HERE, THAT THE GENTLEMAN SEEMS LIKE A FINE GENTLEMAN CAME DOWN HERE FROM ILLINOIS, LAND OF LINCOLN AND OBTAINED ONE OF THE BEST LAW FIRMS IN TAMPA SO OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE SAVVY, SOPHISTICATED, ET CETERA. GOING ON WEEKENDS I THINK IS A BRIDGE TOO FAR. I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING THERE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A PENALTY THAT IS MORE THAN SOMETHING CURSORY. I AM CLOSER TO 30 DAYS THAN I AM. I AM FINE WITH PUSHING IT SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE. BUT PUSHING WILL TOWARDS WEEKENDS I THINK IS A LITTLE WORD -- THE WORD PUNITIVE HAS BEEN USED. I THINK THAT'S OVERLY PUNITIVE. BUTT I AM FOR SOMETHING HARSHER THAN 15 DAYS AND SOMETHING PUSHED INTO THE FUTURE I AM FINE WITH THAT. THIS PROPERTY OWNER, WHETHER OR NOT THEY KNEW ABOUT THIS, THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT AND AGAIN THEY HAVE GREAT LAWYERS, OBVIOUSLY SOPHISTICATED, ET CETERA. YOU DO BUSINESS ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY LIKE THIS AND SITUATED IN THIS PART, YOU ARE EQUIPPED WITH CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU CHOOSE TO -- YOU ARE EQUIPPED WITH CERTAIN DUTIES, I WOULD SUGGEST. BUT AGAIN, SOMETHING ON THE WEEKENDS FOR ME, I JUST THINK I HATE TO USE THE WORD PUNITIVE BUT A LITTLE TOO MUCH. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. >>GWEN HENDERSON: THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO DID WE GO TO JUST THE 30 DAYS OF MARCH THEN, WE REMOVE THE CAUSE OF ACTION? WOULD WE AVOID THAT, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE CONSECUTIVE. SO WE COULD AMEND IT TO JUST THE 30 DAYS IN MARCH. >>LYNN HURTAK: I -- >>> LET HER FINISH. PLEASE FINISH. >>GWEN HENDERSON: THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND THE OTHER THING ABOUT IT, TOO, THIS IS OUR THIRD TIME DEALING WITH AIN' LIQUOR LICENSE SITUATION. SO THE THING THAT KIND OF CONCERNS ME -- AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THIS SHOULD BE APPLIED, BUT WHEN YOU WENT TO EAST TAMPA -- >>> DO NOT INTERRUPT. >>GWEN HENDERSON: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ECONOMICS, AND FINANCIAL LOSS TO THESE LARGER BUSINESSES, OR IS IT SOPHISTICATED HAPPY LAWYER BUSINESSES, AND I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE A FACTOR, AND LET'S JUST STICK WITH WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED. BUT I WANT TO GET TO 4. AND IF WE GET TO 4 VOTES, IT SOUND LIKE WE CAN GET THERE WITH 30 DAYS CONSISTENT. >>MARTIN SHELBY: SO WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH -- >>GWEN HENDERSON: LIKE AMEND IT OR SOMETHING. SUBSTITUTE MOTION? >>MARTIN SHELBY: MY QUESTION IS, YOU ARE THE SECONDER? >>GWEN HENDERSON: I AM THE SECONDER OF THE MOTION. >>MARTIN SHELBY: IN OTHER WORDS A MOTION REQUIRES A MOTION AND A SECOND. YOU SECONDED HER MOTION. >>GWEN HENDERSON: YES, I DID. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YOU WITH DRAW YOUR SECOND? >>GWEN HENDERSON: YES. AND THEN SUBSTITUTE? OR KNOW? >>GIDO MANISCALCO: THE MOTION WOULD DIE AND THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A NEW MOTION. >>GWEN HENDERSON: OKAY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: HOW DID THAT $31,500, 1, 2, 3, GO TO THE COURT? IT WAS EARNED BY WHAT? BY HAVING A VIOLATION? ON THE WEEKENDS. SO I AM NOT OPPOSED TO HAVING IT ON THE WEEKENDS. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. THAT'S WHAT HISTORY TELLS ME. AND YOU CAN VOTE ANYWAY YOU WANT. I DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE A VOTE, BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT AIN'T GOING NOWHERE. HOW DOES IT HAPPEN? IT HAPPENS THROUGHOUT -- THERE HAD TO BE SOMEBODY THERE GIVING A TICKET ON A CERTAIN DAY AT A CERTAIN TIME. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOES YOUR SECOND STILL STAND? >>GWEN HENDERSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER HURTAK, SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER HENDERSON. ROLL CALL VOTE. >>GWEN HENDERSON: OF COURSE. >>LUIS VIERA: NO. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: NO. >>LYNN HURTAK: YES. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: NO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: NO. >>THE CLERK: MOTION FAILED WITH VIERA, CARLSON, CLENDENIN AND MANISCALCO VOTING NO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SO BEFORE A MOTION GETS PUT UP, IT WAS MENTIONED ABOUT SPRING BREAK, 30 DAYS CONSECUTIVELY IS SEWING THAT I WOULD SUPPORT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I MAKE A MOTION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMEMBER HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: I AM MAKING A MOTION TO THEN DO THE 30 DAYS FROM MARCH 1st THROUGH MARCH 30 OF 2025. I'M SORRY, MARCH 31st. NO, YOU ARE RIGHT. 30 DAYS. 1st THROUGH THE 30th, 2025. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: JUST FOR CLARITY, COULD WE SAY MIDNIGHT? >>LYNN HURTAK: TO MIDNIGHT ON MARCH -- ACTUALLY, CAN I BORROW SOMEBODY'S -- I NEED A CALENDAR. THANK YOU. SO I AM GOING TO SAY MARCH, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A PHONE UP HERE. I'M THE ONLY ONE. MARCH 1st THROUGH MARCH 30th 2025. AT MIDNIGHT ON -- SO IT WOULD BE MIDNIGHT, MARCH 1st, WHICH WOULD BE THE FIRST MINUTE OF MARCH 1st, RIGHT? YES. SO 12 AMMAR 1st, MIDNIGHT, 2025, TO 11.59 P.M. MARCH 30th 2025. >>GWEN HENDERSON: SECOND. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMEMBER CLENDENIN. >>LYNN HURTAK: AND MY RATIONALE IS BECAUSE THAT IS WHEN THE CONCERT HAS BEGUN FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN CLENDENIN, THEN CARLSON. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ACTUALLY, I HAD A HARD TIME THE LAST TIME. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE -- YOU HAVE TO ONLY HAVE THE EVIDENCE, WHAT DOES THAT PRODUCE? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WITHIN -- THAT'S NOT WITHIN THE CONFINES OF WHAT IS HIGHLIGHTED IN CODE AND LAW. AND YOU ARE TAPE A -- TAKING A LEAP IN SAYING YOU ARE GUESSING THAT'S GOING TO BE THE WORST TIME, IS GOING TO COST THEM THE MOST AMOUNT OF MONEY. BUT AGAIN THAT'S NOT IN EVIDENCE EITHER. BUT THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT THEY ARE GOING TO -- THEY DISCONTINUED THE USE OF THAT PROMOTER. IN EVIDENCE, THEY HAVE SAID THAT THEY WOULD NOW, IF THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE IT, THEY WOULD APPLY FOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS, SO THEY ARE GOING TO GO AND CHECK OUT ALL THE RESPONSES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, SO THAT WAS IN EVIDENCE, SOMETHING THAT IS IN TESTIMONY, TEY SAID THEY WOULD DO THESE THINGS. SO I DON'T NOT, IT JUST SEEMS VERY ARBITRARY TO ME TO REACH THAT FAR INTO THE FUTURE TO IMPOSE A PENALTY. AND I AM OF THE FEELING, AGAIN, THIS IS A BUSINESS OF A HOTEL, WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE WORKING IN IT, AND CAN WE ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING, AGAIN THE PROBLEM IS OUTDOOR MUSIC, CAN WE DO THE SAME THING WITH WHAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED AND SAY RESTRICT ALCOHOL SALES TO INSIDE, WHICH IS CLEARLY FINE. I THINK MY FOUR-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER COULD TELL YOU WHAT INSIDE AND OUTSIDE IS. AND STILL ALLOW THEM TO FUNCTION AS A HOTEL WITH ALL OF THE BENEFITS AND SERVICES OF THAT AND RESTRICT THE PROFIT AND WHAT THEY WOULD MAKE WITH OUTSIDE LIQUOR CONSUMPTION. >>BILL CARLSON: PART OF WHAT YOU SAID WAS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. I THINK THE BEST DATE FOR THE RESIDENT IN THE FUTURE IS THIS HOTEL FIGURES OUT A WAY TO OPERATE AND BE PROFITABLE AS A HOTEL RESORT WITHOUT CONCERTS OUTSIDE. IF WE LIMITED THE PENALTY TO JUST THE OUTDOOR AREAS, THAT WOULD GIVE THEM 30 DAYS OR WHATEVER TO EXPERIMENT WITH A BUSINESS MOD THAT HE WILL DOESN'T INCLUDE THE OUTDOOR AREAS AND HOPEFULLY THEY WOULD FIND THAT'S A GREAT BUSINESS MODEL FOR THEM AND THEY WON'T NEED CONCERTS ANYMORE AND WE WON'T HAVE TO BE BACK HERE AGAIN. IT SEEMS TO ME IT WOULD BE A LOT MORE EFFECTIVE TO JUST DO IT OUTDOORS. >>LUIS VIERA: I WAS GOING TO -- IT'S WANT TO MAKE SURE BEFORE I WAS GOING TO CALL THE QUESTION SO THAT WE CAN VOTE ON IT. IF NO ONE ELSE HAS TO SAY ANYTHING THEN I WILL CALL THE QUESTION ON IT. AFTER THAT I AM GOING TO CALL THE QUESTION. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: WHAT DOES A PROMOTER MEAN? ANYBODY CAN BE A PRO MOATER -- PROMOTER. IF WE GET ANOTHER NAME, I AM NOT SAYING THEY ARE, DON'T GET ME WRONG, IF YOU CAN GET A PROMOTER AND SAY NO, I USED TO HAVE IT BUT I CHANGED THE NAME AND NOW IT'S ABC INSTEAD OF CBS PROMOTION. I AM JUST SAYING AS AN EXAMPLE OF LAW. THERE IS NOTHING THAT I KNOW THAT IDENTIFIES A PROMOTER. IT'S JUST A NAME. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE ONLY OUTDOOR AREAS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON. COUNCILMEMBER CLENDENIN HAS A MOTION. MR. SHELBY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? >>LYNN HURTAK: MR. VIERA HAD SAID HE WAS GOING TO CALL THE QUESTION AFTER HIS COMMENT. >>LUIS VIERA: LET ME, IF I MAY, I AM GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE QUESTION. IF THIS FAILS -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: POINT OF ORDER, WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND ON THE FLOOR, THE CHAIR SHOULD CALL FOR A VOTE ON THAT AMENDMENT. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE CHAIR VIEWS MR. VIERA'S STATEMENT AS CALLING THE QUESTION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I WOULD ACCEPT WHAT COUNCILMAN VIERA SAID. >>MARTIN SHELBY: IS THERE A SECOND TO CALL THE QUESTION? >> SECOND. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: YOU LE KING QUICHE THE FLOOR FOR SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION AND THEN I AMENDED THE MOTION WHICH WOULD BE IN ORDER, THAT MOTION WAS SECONDED. >>LUIS VIERA: I'LL CALL THE QUESTION ON COUNCILMAN CLENDENIN'S AMENDMENT. I DON'T PLAN ON VOTING FOR IT BUT I JUST WANT TO MOVE THIS% THING FORWARD. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MR. SHELBY, I WILL ACCEPT THAT. I WILL TAKE COUNCILMEMBER CLEAN'S MOTION WITHIN THE SECOND. THIS IS TO RESTRICT IT TO OUTDOOR ONLY. ROLL CALL VOTE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: NO. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>LYNN HURTAK: NO. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: YES. >>GWEN HENDERSON: NO. >>LUIS VIERA: NO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION FAILED WITH MIRANDA HURTAK HENDERSON VIERA VOTING NO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE NOW GO IMPACT TO COUNCILMEMBER HURTAK'S SECOND MOTION. WE CALL THE QUESTION. COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK HAS A MOTION. THERE'S A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HENDERSON. ROLL CALL. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>GWEN HENDERSON: >>LYNN HURTAK: >>GWEN HENDERSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED NATIONAL. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (RECESS). (RECESS). >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: BEFORE WE START WITH ITEM 66, THERE'S A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH CHARTER ACROSS THE DAIS THAT'S VERY DISTRACTING. OUT OF RESPECT FOR EVERYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE AND UP HERE IF WE COULD LIMIT ALL OF THAT SO WE CAN STAY FOCUSED. ITEM 66. >> ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, THIS IS WHAT PROPOSED FIRST READING FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 22 DEALING WITH STREETS AND SIDEWALKS. THESE DEAL WITH PROPOSED CHANGES ARE THE PERMITTING FOR APPLICANT, AND ALSO BRINGS OUR REQUIREMENTS LIKE THE ACTUAL TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BENCHES INTO COMPLIANCE, AND INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, GUIDELINES WHICH ARE UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE ADA. SO WE ARE JUST ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF FIRST READING. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS? COUNCILMEMBER MEMBER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ ITEM 66? >>LUIS VIERA: ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA MAKING REVISIONS TO CITY OF TAMPA CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, ARTICLE 1, ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, AMENDING SECTIONS 22-116 THROUGH 22-121 AND SECTIONS 22-123 THROUGH 22-128 AND SECTIONS 22-132 THROUGH 22-133 PLOYING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH PROVIDNG FOR SEVERABILITY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER CLENDENIN. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED WITH UNANIMOUSLY WITH HURTAK AND HENDERSON ABSENT AT VOTE. SECOND READING AND R WILL BE SEPTEMBER 17th IN TAMPA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 315 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM NUMBER 67. ADMISSION UPDATE. WHAT IS THE CITY DOING REGARDING THE CIT? I SEE ANDREA ZELMAN AND MR. ADAMS IN THE BACKGROUND. >>ANDREA ZELMAN: WE WILL BOTH SPEAK. ANDREA ZELMAN, CITY ATTORNEY. I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE LEGAL PARAMETERS ARE THAT GOVERN WHAT THE CITY CAN DO AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT THE CITY IS DOING, AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR WITH REGARD TO THE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT TAX. I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE DON'T KNOW AND WE CANNOT SPEAK TO WHAT OTHERS OUTSIDE THE CITY MAY BE DOING. WE CAN ONLY SPEAK TO WHAT THE CITY CAN DO AND IS DOING. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THERE IS A FLORIDA STATUTE 106.113 THAT GOVERNS WHAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN SPEND CITY FUNDS ON WITH REGARD TO ELECTIONS. AND IT DOES LIMIT WHAT THE CITY CAN SPEND MONEY ON. AND ONE OF THE RECENT CHANGES, RECENT IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, IS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY GOVERNMENT OR ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN NO LONGER SEND MAILERS FLYERS WHATEVER DIRECTLY TO VOTERS ABOUT AN ITEM THAT'S ON THE BALLOT. SO IF YOU REMEMBER, IN THE PAST, WE PUT THINGS IN PEOPLE'S UTILITY BILLS OR WHATEVER, AND THAT IS NOW PROHIBITED. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY CANNOT SPEND FUNDS ON SOMETHING THAT ADVOCATES FOR THE PASSAGE OF THE REFERENDUM. HOWEVER, WE CAN SPEND IT ON THINGS THAT PROVIDE FACTUAL INFORMATION, ALTHOUGH AGAIN THOSE CANNOT SHALL SENT DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS. THAT WAS THE RECENT CHANGE. WE ARE ALSO PROHIBITED FROM USING CITY MONEY TO PAY LIKE AN OUTSIDE COMPANY TO DO POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS. BUT AGAIN, THE CITY CAN SPEND MONEY ON INFORMATIONAL FLYERS THAT ARE HANDED OUT, FOR INSTANCE, AT A TOWN HALL OR A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, AS LONG AS THE FLYERS ARE LIMITED TO FACTUAL INFORMATION. WE CAN PROVIDE FACTUAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION. WE CAN HOST A PUBLIC FORUM, AND AGAIN PROVIDE FACTUAL INFORMATION. AND WHAT I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED IS WHAT CITY MONEY CAN BE SPENT ON BY STATUTE. I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT, AGAIN, WHILE CITY STAFF, CITY EMPLOYEES CAN ADVOCATE FOR THE PASSAGE, ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS CAN. SO THE MAYOR AND EVERY ONE OF YOU CAN PUBLICLY STATE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD VOTE WHICHEVER WAY YOU BELIEVE THEY SHOULD VOTE ON THIS. YOU CAN SAY IT IN ANY FORMAT YOU WANT TO. AND THAT REMINDS ME, I LEFT OUT ONE THING THE CITY CAN DO. WE CAN POST FACTUAL INFORMATION ON OUR WEBSITE. SO I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN THAT THOSE ARE THE GUARDRAILS THAT THE CITY IS OPERATING UNDER, AND NOW I WILL LET ADAM EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT THE CITY IS DOING WITHIN THOSE GUARDRAILS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. SMITH. >> ADAM SMITH: THAT'S JUST A SAMPLING OF SOME OF THE STUFF WE ARE PUTTING ON SOCIAL MEDIA PUTTING REGULARLY. WE SORT OF HAVE TO BALANCE MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK JUST PRETTY PLAIN VANILLA JUST THE FACTS KIND OF MATERIAL TO LET PEOPLE KNOW -- >>> CAN YOU ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT? >> ADAM SMITH: I DO DO THAT? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SO WHAT I SEE HERE IS THE SOCIAL MEDIA POST BUT THEY ARE HIGHLIGHTING WHAT C.I.T. DOES. >> YES. WE TALK ABOUT WHAT DOES IT FUND, THE BROAD CATEGORIES IT WILL FUND, WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM. THE MAYOR ON HER ACCOUNT IS A LITTLE MORE AGGRESSIVE, SHE ACTUALLY ADVOCATES FOR IT AND SAYS THIS IS ESSENTIAL. BUT WE ALSO WORK CLOSELY WITH THE COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS FOLKS, SO WE SORT OF JOINTLY PUT TOGETHER -- THIS IS THEIR BALLOT INITIATIVE, BUT TOGETHER WE ARE CLOSER TO DO A WEBSITE THAT IDENTIFIES THE PROJECTS BOTH FROM THE CITY SITE AND THEIR SITE. AND THEN JUST TODAY, WE ORDERED, I WOULD CALL IT, CAMPAIGN-TYPE SIGNS THAT WILL BE GOING -- ONE OF THE THINGS, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN IN PINELLAS, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MADE THE PENNY FOR PINELLAS SO SUCCESSFUL AND POPULAR THERE IS THAT EVERYWHERE YOU OH GO YOU SEE THE PAID FOR BY THE PENNY FOR PINES, AND THE GOAL WE TALKED MR. WITH THE COUNTY AND THE CITY IS, IF THIS PASSES LET'S TRY TO KEEP THAT GOING FORWARD, TO MARK OUR PROJECTS, WHETHER IT'S A TEMPORARY PAVING PROJECT OR A NEW REC CENTER PAID FOR BY YOUR -- I THINK ANOTHER QUESTION IS DO WE WANT TO KEEP CALLING IT THE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT TAX? TAX IS NOT A GREAT WORD. I THINK WE CAN DO BETTER AFTER IT'S OVER. SO WE ARE WE HAVE ORDERED FOR NOW 50-YARD SIGNS THAT GOING TO BE PUT IN FRONT OF SOME OF OUR PROJECTS SAYING PAID FOR BY YOUR COMMUNITY INVESTMENT TAX. PEOPLE ARE NOT REALLY AWARE AND WE WANT TO MAKE PEOPLE KNOW AS MUCH AS THEY CAN ABOUT IT. THE MAYOR STARTED, SOME OF YOU WERE AT THE WEST TAMPA CHAMBER, SAW HER TOUTING IT, SHE DID A UNIVERSITY CLUB THING, SHE WILL GO ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE TO TALK ABOUT IT AND YOU ALL COULD, TOO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YOU COULD PUT YOUR HALF CENT AT WORK. YOU DON'T SAY THE THREE LETTER WORD. COUNCILMAN VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I APPRECIATE THAT. BY MAKING THIS MOTION I WASN'T ASKING THE CITY TO SPEND ANY TAX DOLLARS ON PUTTING A POSITION. MY INTENT WAS ON INDIVIDUALLY, AND WHAT WE ARE ALL DOING, IT'S KIND OF LIKE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE BORED AND EVERYBODY MAKES THEIR OWN CHOICE. IT'S SORT TO TO GO, HEY, LOOK, IT'S COMING UP, WE ARE ALMOST IN OCTOBER, MAIL-IN BALLOTS, YOU KNOW, ARE GOING TO BE GOING OUT, I BELIEVE, ET CETERA, AND TO USE OUR VOICE. AND I SAY UNABASHEDLY, OF COURSE I AM FOR THIS. I TALK ABOUT IT IN FRONT OF THE TOWN HALLS THAT I HAVE, COMMUNITY GROUPS THAT I HAVE, I JOKE THAT IF YOU WANT TO DEFUND THE POLICE, TO PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS, BECAUSE THE POLICE BUDGET IS GOING TO BE, THE FIRE BUDGET, OUR ROADS, ET CETERA. IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S PERFECT? I WISH WE HAD MORE PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING. I THINK IT WENT DOWN. 25 TO 5%. OUR SCHOOLS ARE SO CRITICAL. MY SON GOES TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME AND FOR SO MANY. BUT I AM CERTAINLY USING MY VOICE ON THIS, AND I HOPE AGAIN EVERYBODY, I KNOW COUNCILMAN MIRANDA WE ALL LOVE AND RESPECT HAS HIS OPINIONS. I RESPECT IT 110%. BUT FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE FOR IT, I THINK WE SHOULD USE OUR VOICE ON SESSION MEDIA AND THROUGH EVERY MEANS NECESSARY. WE COULD DO A VOTE HERE ON CITY COUNCIL, DO WE SUPPORT THIS? THAT'S NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING. WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS WHEN WE GO TALK TO GROUPS, TALK ABOUT HOW POWER THIS IS, WHICH IS THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 30 YEARS, THIS IS WHAT IT'S GIVEN US, THIS IS WHAT IT WILL GIVE US IN THE FUTURE, AND WORK WITH GROUPS LIKE ATU, WORK WITH GROUPS LIKE LOCAL 754, THE PPA, ET CETERA TO SUPPORT THE WORK THAT THEY DO, BECAUSE WITHOUT THIS MONEY WE FUND OUR POLICE STATIONS AND OUR FIREFIGHTERS AND EVERYTHING FROM TAX DOLLARS. THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT IT. IS IT PERFECT? NO, BUT NOTHING IN POLITICS IS. THAT'S WHY I DID IT, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ALL OUT THERE WORKING LIKE HELL FOR IT. THANK YOU. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I CAN ONLY SAY I AM NOT OPPOSED TO THE -- THE SPORTS FACILITIES DOING THE BEST THEY CAN TO GET THE REVENUE THEY NEED FOR WHATEVER REASON. I HAVE NO QUARREL. I HAVE A QUARREL WITH THE WAY WE WORK. WE ARE AFRAID TO SAY THE TRUTH. FOR INSTANCE, 597 FOR PUBLIC FACILITY. DO YOU THINK THE AVERAGE PERSON KNOWS WHAT A PUBLIC FACILITY IS? THIS HE THINK IT'S A PARK. DO YOU THINK ANYONE CAN GO INTO ANY PUBLIC FACILITY OR CONCERT? THE ABSOLUTE ANSWER IS, NO. AND THEN RIGHT UNDER THAT THEY PUT UNDER 597, THEY PUT 545 MILLION TO BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE SPORTS STADIUMS. SO FOR THE FIRST TIME THEY MENTION SPORTS STADIUMS HERE BUT THEY WILL NOT GET IT ON THE BALLOT. IT'S GETTING VOTERS CONFUSED. THE IN THE CITY AREA THEY GET 339 MILLION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE CITY, 191 FOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT AND 198 FOR FACILITY. HOWEVER THEY GET 253 MILLION FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES. AGAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES. THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN THE CITY AS A PUBLIC FACILITY. THEY ARE CALLED STADIUMS. AND THE PUBLIC AND WE POLITICIANS ARE AFRAID TO PUT IT THE WAY IT IS. THE PUBLIC THAT HAS TO KNOW THE TRUTH. AND LET ME TELL YOU ANOTHER THING. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS THING AND YOU SEE WHAT YOU ARE DOING, A STADIUM IS NOT ANYTHING BUT A PUBLIC FACILITY? ABSOLUTELY NOT. BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS, I WILL SAY IT'S NOT. THEY DON'T TELL THE PUBLIC THE TRUTH. WE ARE AFRAID TO SAY -- THIS STARTED IN 1996, IN FEBRUARY OR MARCH WHEN THEY PUT IT FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION AND THE CITY THE WAY IT SHOULD BE AND NOBODY GAVE A HOOT OR HOLLER, NOBODY RAISED A PENNY TO PASS IT AND IT FAILED. ALL OF A SUDDEN PUT THE STADIUM IN, SPENT $584,000 IN 96 AND IT WINS BY 2.5%. 2.5%. IF WE ARE AFRAID TO GET ALL MUDDY AND PUT IT IN THE STREETS THAT ARE PAVED A LONG TIME AGO, AND SPENT ALL THE MONEY IN THEM, WE WOULD HAVE HAD ONE GOLDEN STREETS, WE WOULD HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED. YOU WOULD HAVE ALL THE CARS YOU NEEDED, YOU WOULD HAVE ALL THE ELECTRICAL YOU NEEDED, HAD ALL THE HOOKUPS YOU NEEDED. BUT NO, WE DON'T DO THAT. ASIDE FROM THAT YOU ARE GIVING AWAY $2 MILLION OF THE FIRST MONEYS EARNED BY THE SPORTS AUTHORITY GOES TO WHO? SOMEBODY THAT DOESN'T HAVE ONE PENNY INVESTED AND CAN NEVER TAKE A LOSS. FOR THE FIRST SEVEN YEARS FROM 99 TO 2006, THEY TOOK IN $10,269,000, THE SPORTS AUTHORITY DIDN'T TAKE IN ONE PENNY. SO THE TOTAL SUMS OF 30 YEARS, 3,658,247 AND THE SPORTS AUTHORITY TOOK IN 21 MILLION. 63 MILLION. SO THE PEOPLE WHO EARNED THE MONEY, THE SPORTS AUTHORITY, CAN'T GIVE TWO-THIRDS BACK TO SOMEBODY THAT DOESN'T HAVE ONE PENNY INVESTED IN IT. IT'S COMICAL IN A WAY AND REALLY SICKENING IN ANOTHER WAY. AND IN 2022, THE STADIUM TOOK IN $195 MILLION. I CAN GO ON AND ON. IN FACT, THERE'S ANOTHER THING OF INTEREST. THE SPORTS AUTHORITY FROM THEN TO NOW HAS TAKEN IN 261,946,000, WHERE THE CITY TOOK IN 393 MILLION. WHAT HAS THE SPORTS AUTHORITY DONE WITH 261 COMPARED TO THE CITY'S 393 MILLION? HASN'T BEEN ANSWERED. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOLS, THE BIGGEST WAS HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY 1,000,200,000 -- 1,000,000,200 MILLION. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PROJECTIONS FOR THE FIVE AND TEN YEAR DEAL, HERE IS WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST YOU. ARCHITECT FEES. FOUR YEARS, 53 MILLION, THE TOTAL IS MORE THAN THE TOTAL, 28 TO 37, 202 MILLION, IN 28 TO 48, 194 MILLION, AND HERE IS THE ONE THAT REALLY BOTHERS ME, AV AND TECHNOLOGY, 138 MILLION, AND THERE'S NOTHING, NO BACKUP MATERIAL. YOU TALK ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. WHERE IS IT HERE? THERE'S NONE. THEY ARE TAKING IN $498 MILLION, AND THE PUBLIC IS NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS TAX, BECAUSE WE DON'T PRESENT IT THE RIGHT WAY.% WE SHOULD TAKE IT ALL FOR OURSELVES. THE PUBLIC DOESN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO GO TO HALF OF THESE FACILITIES BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO GET IN. THEY HAVE A CONTRACT FOR 30 YEARS. AN INCREASE IN RENT AND WE HAVE PEOPLE LIVING ON THE STREET THAT WE HAVE TO SUBSIDIZE FOR RENT PAYMENTS, AND WE HAVE TO DO IT, AND WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY F.WE HAD THIS WE WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM. WE WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE HOMELESS. WE CREATE OUR OWN PROBLEMS. AND THEY ARE GOING TO GET THE POLICE CARS, THEY ARE GOING TO GET EVERYTHING. ALL THEY GOT TO DO IS UNPASS THIS AND PASS IN THE 2028 AND GIVE IT BACK TO THE CITIZENS WHO PUT IT IN. THANK YOU. [BELL SOUNDS] >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU. ITCH COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE CONTRACT IS BAD FOR US. UNFORTUNATELY, WE ARE IN THE CONTRACT. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THEM EVERY YEAR REGARDLESS, UNTIL IT'S OVER, AND THEN WE CAN RENEGOTIATE. SO FOR ME, THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF THE OTHER THINGS IT'S DOING, POLICE AND FIRE. I AM NOT ONE THAT WANTS TO FUND THE STADIUM, AND SO I AM VERY THANKFUL THAT THE RAYS DIDN'T STAY IN ST. PETE, BUT THIS, WE CAN'T NOT PAY IT. WE ARE CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED. SO TO ME THIS IS NOT AS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE WE ARE ALREADY OBLIGATED. THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF THAT I AM OBLIGATED TO THAT I AM NOT THRILLED ABOUT, BUT WE ARE. THE DECISIONS WERE MADE BEFORE I STAT IN THIS SEAT. SO GOING FORWARD, WE HAVE TO SUPPORT OUR POLICE, OUR FIRE. THERE'S NO WAY THAT WE CAN DO THAT GOING FORWARD WITHOUT WAIVING OUR MILLAGE OR TAXING OURSELVES AGAIN AND TRYING AGAIN IN 2028. I GUESS WE COULD TRY 2026 IF WE TRY A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BUT, NO, WE CAN'T, SO 2028 IT IS. SO ACTUALLY I HAVE BEEN ENJOYING YOU PUTTING THESE UP AS WE ARE GOING. THIS IS GREAT. AND IF THESE ARE TYPES OF THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT BE WILLING TO SHARE AND THEN E-MAIL OR TEXT MESSAGE, WELL, I GUESS WE CAN JUST RESHARE ON SOCIAL MEDIA, BUT I DO APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ARE DOING GOING FORWARD, THE FACTUAL INFORMATION IS VERY HELPFUL, AND BUT I WOULD ACTUALLY LOVE SOME PHYSICAL COPIES OF THIS SO THAT I CAN TAKE IT FROM ME WHEN I GO PLACES TO SHOW PEOPLE, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, GIVING SOME COLOR COPIES TO ALL OF US, MAYBE LIKE TWO OR THREE COPIES. I WILL TRY TO KEEP THEM ORIGINAL. >> ONE PAGE SORT OF THING? >>LYNN HURTAK: NO, JUST LIKE THIS, IF I COULD GET PHOTOCOPIES. THESE ARE GREAT AND THAT WAY I CAN KIND OF SHOW PEOPLE WHAT THEY PAID FOR, WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO PAY FOR. THIS IS MORE TANGIBLE AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU ARE DOING BEHIND THIS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: YES, I AM JUST KEEPING IT REAL FOR FOLKS THAT ARE LISTENING AND FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE UP HERE, ABSENTEE BALLOTS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY GO OUT TWO WEEKS FROM TODAY. THEY WILL BE MAILED. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. 14 DAYS. THIS IS THE TIME FRAME WE ARE LOOKING AT. I CANNOT EVEN IMAGINE WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE TRYING TO DO A BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF TAMPA WITHOUT THE C.I.T., AND WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL REVENUE. I MEAN, ALL THE POINTS ARE VALID. AGAIN, COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK REMINDED US US WE HAVE GOT CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS THAT HAVE TO BE PAID. WE CAN'T GO BACK. THERE'S NO MACHINE TO TAKE US BACK TO RENEGOTIATE THESE CONTRACTS. THAT'S DONE. THEY CAN EXTEND THE CONTRACT AT THEIR WILL. SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY. I DON'T KNOW, HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ARE YOU WILLING TO LAY OFF? WHAT IS IT, COUNCILMAN VIERA SAID YOU WANT TO DEFUND THE POLICE, THIS IS THE WAY TO DO IT. YOU WANT TO NOT BUILD FIRE STATIONS? HEY, THIS IS THE WAY TO DO IT. I MEAN, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SACRIFICE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA? WE ARE TALKING A SUBSTANTIAL SUM OF MONE, AND WE FUND JUST THE NORMAL DAILY BUSINESS OPERATIONS IN THE CITY OF TAMPA WITH THIS. I DON'T KNOW, THE CITY WITHOUT RAISING TAXES IN ANOTHER WAY, I DON'T THINK WE CAN FUNCTION AS A CITY. WE ALREADY HIGHLIGHTED THE OTHER DAY, WE ARE ALREADY THE LOWEST MILLAGE RATE. OUR MILLAGE RATE IS LOWER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE. GOOD LUCK WITH THIS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ALL RIGHT. YES MA'AM. >>GWEN HENDERSON: COUNCILMAN MIRANDA, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE AND I AGREE WITH YOU. THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM NUMBER 70. >>GWEN HENDERSON: ALSO, IT'S A GOOD TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION IS UP TO DATE. SO TRY TO CHECK EVERY WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: HILLSBOROUGH.GOV. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ITEM 73 IS A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER VIERA. >> RECEIVE AND FILE. >>LUIS VIERA: I WAS GOING TO RECEIVE AND FILE, AND I KNOW COUNCILMAN COUNCILMEMBER HENDERSON YOU INDICATED YOU WANTED TO HAVE STAFF HERE. I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION AT THE END, AND I WILL DO IT AT THE END, JUST CORRESPONDENCE OF THE ITALIAN CLUB ON CURSORY ISSUES, AND EVERYTHING. BUT I'M FINE TO RECEIVE AND FILE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE 73. MOTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER HENDERSON, SECOND BY HENDERSON. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? I THINK THIS IS THE LAST ITEM. ITEM 74. MS. FEELEY OR MR. COTTON. THERE IS A PowerPoint? >>ERIC COTTON: WE HAVE A PAPER COPY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THAT'S GREAT TOO. >>ERIC COTTON: I'M OLD-FASHIONED. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: PAPER IS GOOD. IT'S TRADITIONAL. >>ERIC COTTON: LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. THIS AS A RESULT OF A COUNCIL MOTION A COUPLE WEEKS AGO TO ADDRESS THE OFF-SITE PARKING IN THE 27-283.6. THE SPECIFIC MOTION FROM COUNCIL WAS ASKING THAT LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF COME, AGREE TO ADDRESS THE LENGTH OF LEASES AND SUCH, OR USE OFF-SITE PARKING. SAG LONNY WAS HERE EARLIER. HE ARRIVED ATH 1:30. HE LEFT A LITTLE AFTER 4:15. BUT HE SAID HE WOULD BE WATCHING THIS. I WANT TO GO OVER, THE CURRENT THE CURRENT CODE LANGUAGE, ABOU- CURRENT PARKING CHALLENGES THAT THE CITY HAS, THE LEASE TERMS AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE LEASE AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, WE DID DRAFT UP SOME QUICK AMENDED LANGUAGE. IF IT'S COUNCIL'S PLEASURE TO MOVE FORWARD WE WOULD INCLUDE THIS IN THE CYCLE AND BRING IT BACK NEXT WEEK FOR THE JULY CYCLE. IN THE WORKSHOP. IN SUMMARY, THIS IS THE CURRENT LANGAGE IN THE CODE. FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES IT ALLOWS SOMEONE TO UTILIZE OUTSIDE PARKING. THE USE BEING SERVED BY OFFSIDE PARKING THE USE IS ALLOWED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT WHERE THE PARKING IS BEING SHARED. SO IF YOU ARE A MEDICAL OFFICE AND YOU ARE ZONED CG AND YOU WANT TO USE OFF-SITE PARK, IT HAS TO BE LIKE CG, CI, OR WOULD ALSO ALLOW MEDICAL OFFICE USE, WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET ON A STATE PEDESTRIAN ROUTE, THE CODE GOES INTO A LITTLE MORE LONG-TERM LANGUAGE AND CODE HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SO THE CURRENT -- THE CITY IS RUNNING OUT OF LAND. I THINK WE HAVE HERE 3 OR 4% VACANT LAND THAT'S YET TO BE DEVELOPED. SO PUT IT AS THE COST OF PROVIDING SERVICE PARKING, OR STRUCTURED PARKING. IT IS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. THE BEST USE OF THE LAND OFTEN IS NOT A PARKING LOT. PARKING LOTS JUST SIT THERE, AND THEY ARE USED OCCASIONALLY, OR OFTEN DEPENDING ON WHAT THE BUSINESS IS. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE OVERPARK USES. OUR RIGHT FOR RETAIL IS A THOUSAND. SOME DEVELOPMENTS, WHEN THEY COME IN, THEY PARK AT 5 OR 6 PER THOUSAND BECAUSE THEIR BUSINESS MODEL SAYS WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT MUCH PARKING. THE OTHER CONCERN THAT ALWAYS COMES UP, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING WHERE DO THE PEOPLE PARK, SO YOU CAN END UP WITH OVERFLOWING INTO NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THEN ENSURE THAT THE OFF-SITE PARKING, IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO OFF-SITE PARKING, THAT THAT OFF-SITE PARKING HAS ENOUGH PARKING FOR ITS USE AND THE USE IS GOING TO BE SHARED. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF I AM A RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT AND I WANT A BUSINESS BUT I ONLY HAVE 10 PARKING SPACES BUT I NEED 15, 2001 DOORS DOWN THERE'S A PARKING LOT THAT HAS 10 PARKING SPACES BUT THEY HAVE 20, THEY ARE OVERPARKED. I COULD UTILIZE THAT PARKING. SO THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP LAST WEEK WAS LEASE TERMS AND LANGUAGE. WHICH IS THE LENGTH OF A LEASE. THE CODE IS SILENT. IT JUST SAYS, A LEASE APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. RIGHT NOW, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE LEASE HAS TO BE A MINIMUM OF TEN YEARS. WHEN I STARTED WORKING HERE, WHICH WAS A WHILE BACK, I BELIEVE IT WAS 99 YEARS. SO PUTTING AN OWNERSHIP NINTH R IN THAT PERSON TO UTILIZE A LEASE. NOBODY WANTS TO TIE UP THEIR PROPERTY FOR 99 YEARS FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO PARK ON IT. THAT WAS AMENDED, IN FIVE YEARS, PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION, WAS ABOUT FIVE YEARS. NOW IT'S UP TO TEN YEARS. ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT CODE RIGHT IN AND OUT IS THAT LEASE HAS TO GET RECORDED. SO IT SHOWS UP IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, IF SOMEBODY GOES TO SEARCH ON THE PROPERTY DO A TITLE SEARCH THAT LEASE WILL SHOW UP AS BEING A RECORDED DOCUMENT. I MAY HAVE TO HAVE SUSAN ADDRESS THE VIABILITY. THE ADDRESS OF A THOUSAND FEET, THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION TO MOVING IT TO 1320 WHICH IS A QUARTER MILE, AND THEN A TERMINATION CLAUSE IF THE LEASE IS TERMINATED, WHAT HAPPENS? THERE'S USUALLY LANGUAGE WHEN THE LEASE -- THAT THE CITY GETS IDENTIFIED. THE QUESTION IS WHAT DO WE DO ONCE WE ARE IDENTIFIED OF THAT INFORMATION? STAFF DOES HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. ONE, WEE MAKE IT ONLY FOR A NONRESIDENTIAL USES. SO AN APARTMENT COMPLEX OR A CONDOMINIUM CAN'T GET PARKING OFF-SITE FOR SOMEWHERE ELSE, SO IF YOU ARE BUILDING APARTMENTS THAT HAVE 500 UNITS, 600 PARKING SPACES, THEY WOULD HAVE ALL 600 ON THEIR SITE WHETHER IT BE ON THE SURFACE OR WHEREVER THAT MAY BE. ANOTHER TEN YEAR LEASE TERM, WE COULD PUT THAT INTO CODE, HOW IT'S MEASURED. REQUIRE NOTICE TO THE CITY, CODIFY THE REQUIREMENT THAT CITY GETS NOTIFIED IF A DEGREES IS CANCELED BY EITHER PARTY. AND THIS IS THE ONE TO ENSURE THAT WE KNOW THAT THE OTHER SITE THAT THE PERSON IS BORROWING PARKING FROM, SHARED PARKING IS COMING FROM, MAKING SURE WE HAVE AN AS-BUILT SURVEY THAT SHOWS HOW MUCH PARKING IS LEADED, MAKING SURE IT ALL FUNCTIONS, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO RUN INTO PEOPLE UTILIZE A SITE THAT DOES NOT HAVE FUNCTIONAL PARKING. SO I HAVE A BLOWUP OF EACH INDIVIDUAL THINGS ON A SEPARATE -- ON SEPARATE SHEETS SO IT'S MORE LEGIBLE. THE FIRST ONE SHOW THAT THE PROPOSED USE, THE USE THAT NEEDS TO BORROW THE PARKING, IS A PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USE ON THE SITE AS PARKING IS GOING TO. GOING BACK TO MY EXAMPLE, RETAIL, ZONED CG, YOU CAN'T GO PARK ON AN RM SUCH LOT, BECAUSE RETAIL IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE RM-24. THE THOUSAND FEET MEASUREMENT WHICH WOULD BE MEASURED FROM VEHICULAR EXCELLENCE OF THE PLACE WHERE THE PERSON IS BORROWING THE PARKING TO THE PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY THAT YOU UTILIZE IN THE SHARED PARKING. AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT A PLAN SHOWING WHOEVER IS APPLICANT IS SHOWING THE WAY THE PERSON IS BLOCKING, OR PEDESTRIAN ROUTE, WERE CROSSED OFF IF IT'S LIT OR NOT LIST AND HOW IT'S PROPERLY MARKED. AGAIN, THIS IS GOING BACK TO WHAT I JUST SAID, UTILIZING AN AS-BUILT SURVEY NO MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OLD SO WE KNOW HOW THAT PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY SITUATED. AND THEN THE FINAL LANGUAGE THAT WOULD BE IN THE CODE WOULD BE ENSURING THAT THE LEASE IS A MINIMUM OF TEN YEARS OLD, TEN YEARS LONG, AND THAT ONCE IT'S RECORDED, BEFORE WE WOULD ISSUE A LETTER, IT WOULD BE RECORDED, BUT WE WOK GET A COPY OF THAT RECORDED DOCUMENT FROM THE CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT. DOES COUNCIL HAVE QUESTIONS? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ANYBODY? COUNCILMEMBER CLENDENIN. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THIS WHOLE ISSUE IS PERPLEXING BECAUSE I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS I HEARD FROM THE TIME I HAVE BEEN ON COUNCIL IS A WORLD APART, AND WE PROVIDED PARKING WHENEVER WE APPROVED SOMETHING, WE APPROVED PARKING WAIVERS. SO I AM NOT QUITE SURE WHERE WE ARE. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT WE MOVE THIS ISSUE TO THE FEBRUARY 27, 2025 WORKSHOP, AND WORKSHOP WHAT PARKING LOOKS LIKE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA. >>LYNN HURTAK: I'LL SECOND THAT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: OKAY, SO WE WILL LEAVE THAT. >>LYNN HURTAK: HONESTLY I WAS GOING TO SAY ALMOST THE EXACT SAME THING.% WHEN I LOOK AT THIS FOR ME, AND SOME OF THIS IS A PART OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REWRITE. BUT TO ME, WE ARE CREATING MORE OF A PROBLEM, BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE DOING BY ADDING MORE RESTRICTIONS IS WE ARE BASICALLY HAMSTRINGING PEOPLE FROM DEVELOPING, AND THAT TO ME IS A STRUGGLE. BECAUSE IF WE ARE TAKING OUT THE RESIDENTIAL POSSIBILITIES, THEN IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A SIX STORY BUILDING, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE TOWER PARKING, AND THAT'S COST PROHIBITIVE. SO WE DON'T HAVE LAND TO CONTINUE TO PARK PEOPLE ON THE GROUND. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO HIGH. BUT AT THE SAME TIME -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: CAN WE JUST WORKSHOP THIS? BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT, TOO. >>LYNN HURTAK: YES, SO I DON'T REALLY SUPPORT THIS MEASURE, IS BASICALLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. BUT I WILL SUPPORT IT IF HE WANTS TO GO FORWARD. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MS. FEELEY. >>ABBYE FEELEY: GOOD AFTERNOON. COUPLE THINGS. ONE IS, WE COME TO YOU NEXT WEEK WITH THE JULY CYCLE. AS I HAVE MENTIONED A COUPLE OF OTHER TIMES, WE ARE NOT GOING TO PROCESS ANY OTHER TEXT AMENDMENTS AFTER THE JULY CYCLE BECAUSE WE ARE NOW IN THE CODE UPDATE SOCIETY I DON'T WANT TO PUT THIS IN FEBRUARY AND THEN START TRACKING IT THINKING IT'S GOING TO COME IN THE JANUARY CYCLE. THERE WILL NOT BE ANOTHER CYCLE. SO JUST TO WALK BACK THE ISSUE FOR A MOMENT, THIS RELATES TO THE YBOR CITY ISSUE WHERE THERE WAS A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT HAD A LEASE FOR OFF-SITE PARKING, THAT LEASE TERMINATED 60 DAYS AFTER -- I THINK THERE WAS A TERMINATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE THAT TALKED ABOUT THE ABILITY TO TERMINATE 06 DAYS AFTER OR 60 DAYS NOTICE OR SOMETHING. WHAT MR. SCAGLIONE BROUGHT TO YOU THAT YOU MADE THIS MOTION BASED ON IS THAT THERE IS A LOOPHOLE IN PROVIDING OFF-SITE PARKING WITH OTHER ENTITIES, BECAUSE IF YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU ARE USING THAT FOR ZONING COMPLIANCE BUT THEN YOU CAN GO OFF AND TERMINATE IT IN 60 DAYS OR WHATEVER THAT IS, YOU ARE NOT REALLY IN ZONING COMPLIANCE ANYMORE. BUT THOSE THINGS ARE FALLING OUT. SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE RECOMMENDATIONS CAME FROM. WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ANY ACTION. WE CAN LEAVE IT AS IT IS AND LET COME THROUGH THE CODE UPDATE AND SEE WHAT THE COLORION TEAM MIGHT RECOMMEND IN RELATIONSHIP TO A PROCESS FOR ALLOWING SHARED PARKING OR OFF-SITE PARKING OR THESE TYPES OF LEASE SCENARIOS. AND WE CAN STILL WORKSHOP IT. THAT'S STILL AN OPTION AS WELL. BUT I JUST WANT TO SET UP EXPECTATIONS IN RELATIONSHIP IF BE WE WORKSHOP IT IN FEBRUARY WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO, BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR IN MY REPRESENTATION TO THE PUBLIC AND OTHERS THAT WE ARE NOW IN THIS OTHER CYCLE, AND I DON'T WANT TO BE WORKING ON THINGS OUTSIDE OF WHAT THEY ARE WORKING ON WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING HOLISTICALLY AND US BE TRACKING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. SO I JUST QUANTITIED TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD CLEARLY. IT'S THE PLEASURE OF COUNCIL BUT WE WILL NOT HAVE A JANUARY CYCLE. CLEP CHARGEN SO WAY HEARD YOU SAID IS THIS WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE LONGER TERM SOLUTION THAT YOU ARE WORKING ON. SO LET'S NOT TAKE ANY ACTION AND LET THE PROCESS BLOW OUT IN A LONGER TERM SOLUTION. >>ABBYE FEELEY: THE OTHER THING TO RESPOND TO THAT, UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING THAT MS. JOHNSON-VELEZ AND MR. COTTON FEEL ARE GROSSLY WRONG IN THE CODE RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD SUGGEST MINOR CHANGES OR WITHOUT CHANGING CONTENT TO COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK'S POINTED ABOUT LEAVING THE RESO IN OR OUT, IF THERE'S SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS NOW, PLEASE SAY THAT. IF NOT, IF IT'S THE PLEASURE OF COUNCIL, WE CAN MAKE SURE WHEN WE ARE WORKING WITH THE TEAM THAT WE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WOULD IT BE BENEFICIAL? I THINK COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK AND I ARE SIMPATICO ON THIS ISSUE. WOULD IT BE BENEFICIAL WITH YOUR LONGER TERM STRATEGY OF WORK WITH THE SENTIMENT OF COUNCIL IN A WORKSHOP THIS FEBRUARY? >>ABBYE FEELEY: THAT COULDN'T HURT. I AM NEVER GOING TO SAY NO TO THAT OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THAT. I JUST WANT THE EXPECTATION TO KNOW THAT IT WOULD TRAVEL -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: LET'S GO AHEAD AND WORKSHOP THIS ON FEBRUARY 27th. >>LYNN HURTAK: I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION. AND THAT YOU BROUGHT UP THAT -- WHEN IS THE PROJECTED TIME TO GET THOSE CHANGES FROM CLARION? WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT? ARE WE LOOKING AT 2026? JANUARY? I BELIEVE THAT THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING -- AND PLEASE DON'T QUOTE ME ON THIS. >>LYNN HURTAK: NO, I AM JUST TRYING TO FIND A BALLPARK. >>ABBYE FEELEY: I BELIEVE THE FIRST INTENDED HEARING WOULD BE SPRING OF 26. >>LYNN HURTAK: SO THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. BUT IF WE DO HAVE ISSUES, OR THINK THINGS, WHEN THEY COME TO AND KIND OF FIND OUT WHERE THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS WHEN WE DO HAVE ISSUES, IF THAT IS A WAY THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH SOME OF THE CONCERNS WE MAY HAVE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. >>ABBYE FEELEY: YES. AND THAT'S FOR THE COMING, INSTALLMENT IS THE ASSESSMENT. AFTER THE ASSESSMENT THE DRAFT CODE WILL COME IN THREE INSTALLMENTS. SO THERE WILL BE THREE PIECES, AND THAT WE WILL BE WORKING ON BEFORE IT'S ALL PARK AND UP INTO ONE. >>LYNN HURTAK: GREAT. AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE THREE SECTIONS. OKAY PERFECT. I JUST WANTED TO GET A LITTLE MORE CLARIFICATION.% BECAUSE WHEN YOU SAY WE CAN'T DO CODE CHANGES, FOR A SECOND -- BUT KNOWING WHERE THE STOPS ARE IS HELPFUL. SO THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MR. CARLSON. >>BILL CARLSON: THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE FOR A LONG TIME, BESIDES YBOR, IT'S BEEN AN ISSUE ON HOWARD AVENUE FOR A LONG, LONG TIME, TOO. PEOPLE MAKE FUN OF IT BECAUSE THERE SEEM TO BE MULTIPLE LEASES ON THE SAME SPOT OF LAND. I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID A MINUTE AGO. I WISH THAT WE COULD PUT THIS IN THIS CYCLE AND THEN IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO MODIFY IT IN THE BIGGER PROCESS GO AHEAD. BUT JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEEN OUT THERE A LONG TIME DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULDN'T TRY TO FIX IT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND FOR THE WORKSHOP IN FEBRUARY 27. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S IT FOR NEW BUSINESS. COUNCILMAN MIRANDA? >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: [OFF MICROPHONE] >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMEMBER VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA: I HAVE A COUPLE, IF I MAY. I HAD MENTIONED THE ITALIAN CLUB BY MOTION. AND I CAN DO THIS LETTER, COUNCIL. OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ANYTHING CONTROVERSIAL. I WOULD SAY IF YOU GUYS WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT BEFORE IT GOES OUT THAT'S FINE. BUT A MOTION FOR A TAMPA CITY COUNCIL LET EARTH SENT TO THE ITALIAN CLUB SHOWING OUR DISAPPOINTMENT OF FAILURE TO APPEAR BEFORE COUNCIL AS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED AND BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT THEIR FINDINGS AS RELATES TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE CEMETERY FOR TRANSPARENCY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMON VIERA, SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN HENDERSON. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? YES SIR. ANYTHING ELSE? >>LUIS VIERA: YES, I'M SORRY. ACTUALLY GOT A FEW. THIS IS ONE THAT I THINK CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO GET SOME GOOD USE FROM. DARRYL BUTLER IS OUR RACIAL RECONCILIATION COMMITTEE FACILITATOR. SO I WOULD LIKE FOR HIM TO HAVE US JOIN US VIRTUALLY AT THE REGULAR SESSION ON OCTOBER 3rd OF 2024 FOR A SHORT FIVE OR TEN MINUTE -- WE CAN LIMIT TO THE TEN MINUTES. I BELIEVE WE ARE UNDER BUDGET. AND I AM CONFIRM BUT THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, REGARDING THE UPCOMING COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND PLANNINGS. SO THAT'S ALL. WE CAN EITHER DO IT UNDER CEREMONIALS OR AFTER LUNCH TIME. I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO HEAR FROM HIM. I THINK IT WOULD PROVIDE SOME GOOD SUBSTANCE FOR US. BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH HIM A LOT. BUT I THINK WE ALL -- >>> TWO COMMENDATIONS FROM THE SBA, STAFF REPORTING. >>MARTIN SHELBY: HERE IS THE THING COUNCILMAN. BUT THIS GENTLEMAN IS GOING TO BE COMING IN REMOTELY IS MY UNDERSTANDING AND IS GOING TO BE COMING IN FROM ORLANDO. BUT HE'S NOT GOING TO BE DRIVING. SO I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST, COUNCIL, TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE HIM, EVEN IF IT MEANS GIVING HIM A TIME UNDER -- AND IF YOU HAVE TO WAIVE THE RULES IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO DO THAT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: A TIME CERTAIN LATER AFTER THAT, LIKE AT 3:00? >>MARTIN SHELBY: BUT WE WON'T KNOW WHEN HE'S GOING TO BE ON STANDBY, HOW LONG, WHAT TIME. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: IF WE HAVE TWO REVIEW HEARINGS THAT START AT 1:30, THAT TAKE UP THE WHOLE TIME. OR WE COULD DO A THREE IF HE'S GOING TO JUST DO A QUICK PRESENTATION. (ENCODER DROP). >>LUIS VIERA: AND MR. SHELBY, TRUST ME, YOU ARE NOT OUT OF LINE. I APPRECIATE IT. SO YEAH. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: DO YOU WANT TO WAIVE THE RULES AND DO IT AT THE BEGINNING? >>ALAN CLENDENIN: DO A TIME CERTAIN. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: TEN MINUTES FOR EVERYBODY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: COUNCIL MAY HAVE QUESTIONS. BE MINDFUL -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: HOW ABOUT TEN MINUTES IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE COMMENDATIONS? >>ALAN CLENDENIN: IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET NOVEMBER 7th INSTEAD OF WAIVING THE RULES? >>MARTIN SHELBY: THE RACIAL CONCILIATION COMMITTEE WAS SUPPOSED TO START IN SEBATE SEPTEMBER. BUT BECAUSE OF THE LOGISTICS, IT'S VERY TIMELY FOR COUNCIL -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: CAN WE DO A COMMENDATION INSTEAD OF WAIVING THE RULES? >>MARTIN SHELBY: SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. I DON'T KNOW WHOSE MOTION THAT WAS. >>LYNN HURTAK: I'LL SECOND WAIVING THE RULES. >>LUIS VIERA: [OFF MICROPHONE] IF I MAY, I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT TO DO IT. I THINK IT'S PIVOTAL. I APPRECIATE ON WAIVING THE RULES. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE SBA. THAT'S BECAUSE OF HURRICANE DEBBY AND THE TIME FRAME EXPIRES. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE COMING IN. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SO THERE IS A MOTION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE RULES BY COUNCILMEMBER CLENDENIN TO WAIVE THE RULES UNDER CEREMONIALS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE RULES. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? THE RULES HAVE BEEN WAIVED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: AND AFTER TH- >>> THE MOTION IS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN TO PRESENT UP TO TEN MINUTES UNDER THE -- AFTER THE ATU PRESENTATION. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VIERA. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? YES? >>LYNN HURTAK: I'LL SECOND IT. AND MY ONLY REQUEST, MR. VIERA, IS YOU CAN GIVE HIM SOME PARAMETERS. >>LUIS VIERA: YES, MA'AM. >>LYNN HURTAK: SO HE'S NOT JUST TALKING, BUT TELL HIM WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ALL IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT. OPPOSED? CONGRATULATIONS. >>LUIS VIERA: LAST IF I MAY, THE JUNIOR LEAGUE OF TAMPA DIAPER NEED AWARENESS WEEK, THEY HAVE REQUESTED A COMMENDATION AND I WISH TO GIVE IT TO THEM. I WILL DO IT OFF-SITE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN CLENDENIN. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? >>GWEN HENDERSON: YES, SIR, I HAVE THREE THINGS. FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION AS ADRIA COLINA, AND MOVE THAT SHE COME BEFORE COUNCIL AND TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON HANNA CITY CENTER IN TERMS OF FACILITY USE AND FUTURE PLANS, JUST TO GET AN UPDATE ON THAT SPACE AND WHAT'S GOING ON, THE EFFORTS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT IT. AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE FUTURE PLANS. SO JUST TO BE VERY TRANSPARENT ABOUT -- YOU KNOW WHAT? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: DO YOU WANT TO COME BACK AND GIVE US AN UPDATE NEXT WEEK? >>GWEN HENDERSON: WHAT'S AVAILABLE? THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: OCTOBER 17 UNDER STAFF REPORT. >>GWEN HENDERSON: AND CHARLIE SECONDED IT. I WANT IT IN PERSON. I WANT TRANSPARENCY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILWOMAN HENDERSON FOR OCTOBER 17 UNDER STAFF REPORTS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. JUST A REMINDER, OCTOBER 17th IS NOT AT YOUR LIMIT. >>GWEN HENDERSON: WITH THAT MOTION? >>MARTIN SHELBY: WITH THAT MOTION. >>GWEN HENDERSON: THANK YOU. AND THE OTHER TWO ARE REALLY JUST ANNOUNCEMENTS. FIRST, NEXT WEEK, JULIAN B LANE, I AM GOING TO BE PRESENTING QUITE A FEW SUGGESTIONS, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. COULD I GIVE THOSE TO COUNCIL IN ADVANCE JUST FOR EFFICIENCY IN A MEMO? BECAUSE I NOTICED -- >>MARTIN SHELBY: YES. >>GWEN HENDERSON: JUST FOR EFFICIENCY. BUT ALSO IF YOU HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS AS WELL. THEY CAN'T SHARE BUT FEEL FREE TO AT LEAST BRING THEM BEFORE COUNCIL ON THAT DAY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: YES. >>GWEN HENDERSON: THANK YOU. THEN THE OTHER ONE, DARLEEN PUT IT DOWN. I JUST WANT TO THANK THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OFFICE BEHIND MEND THIS IS THE NATIONAL HBCU WEEK. NATIONAL HBCU WEEK, WHICH HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AS CLASSIFIED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PRIMARILY HISTORIC BLACK INSTITUTIONS BUILT, IN EXISTENCE BEFORE THE 1960s, AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT LAST YEAR WE HAD AN EVENT HERE IN THE SISTER CITY ROOM WHERE WE CELEBRATED THAT WITH STAFF, AND PEOPLE CAME BY AND CELEBRATED, PEOPLE WHO GRADUATED FROM THOSE INSTITUTIONS AND ON THE FOLKS AS WELL. SO THIS YEAR I WANTED TO ACTIVATE THE HANNA CENTER BECAUSE IT HAD KIND OF LIKE A QUAD WRANGLE YARD SPACE. SO I INTEREST SITED THE COMMUNITY AND WE ARE CELEBRATING HBCU WEEK IN THE HANNA CENTER. I WANT TO THANK COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, DAVID HER REAR A, HIS TITLE IS DIGITAL CONTENT CREATOR HE UTILITY LIESED A PHOTOGRAPH, I MEAN A PICTURE, PAINTED BY MICHELLE TURKIN, A LOCAL ARTIST, AND IS OF MY GRADUATION EXPERIENCE, BUT HE INCORPORATED THAT WITH THE COLORS, AND FRANK, AND EVERYBODY ELSE WHO WORKED DOWN THERE, JANELL McGREGOR, AND HOPEFULLY YOU ALL CAN STONE BY AND FOOD TRUCKS, MUSIC, VENDORS, JUST FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS, AND HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WILL TURN INTO AN ANNUAL EVENT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO PROBABLY BE THERE AROUND 4:00. >>GWEN HENDERSON: YOU CAN WEAR A PBIU-T-SHIRT IF YOU WANT. THE GOOD VIBES. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S DEFINITELY GOING TO TAKE PLACE, FRANKY BEVERLY, WONDERFUL MUSICIAN, PASSED AWAY LAST WEEK, AND HIS MUSIC IS VERY BIG IN HBCU CULTURE SO YOU WILL HEAR A LOT OF HIS MUSIC BEING PLAYED THAT DAY. SO IT'S KIND OF OLD SCHOOL, AND I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT A LOT OF OLDER HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGE GRADUATES ARE COMING, WHICH IS REALLY GREAT, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT TO BE A YOUNG PEOPLE THING. I REALLY WANT TO ACTIVATE OUR SENIOR CITIZENS TO COME OUT AND HANG OUT AND HAVE FUN. SO THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILMEMBER CLENDENIN. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I THINK WE HAVE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT I REQUIRE LIQUOR TO GO ANYWHERE. [ LAUGHTER ] I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY. NEXT WEEK AT THE WORKSHOP, KEEPING IT LIGHT, BECAUSE WE HAVE KICKED THE ISSUE ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS PDs EVERY TIME WE PULTE THIS ON THE SCHEDULE, WE HAVE LOADED THE SCHEDULE UP, AND KEEP DEFERRING THE AUTHORIZATION. SO I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO HAVING ONE OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS THAT I REALLY WANTED TO HAVE SINCE I FIRST JOINED COUNCIL. I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT DISCUSSION. SO IF YOU GUYS WILL COME READY TO TALK ABOUT THAT NEXT WEEK, SO WE CAN HAVE TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU. SOMETIMES I WISH YOU WOULD START ON THIS SIDE BECAUSE PEOPLE TOOK MY PIECE. [ LAUGHTER ] THAT'S OKAY. I MOVE TO HAVE STAFF PRESENT A WRITTEN REPORT ON THE NUMBER OF LEASES WE HAVE WITH THE GTE BUILDING AT 711 EAST HENDERSON AVENUE, THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT ARE HOUSED AT THE GTE BUILDING PERMANENT AND PERSONNEL DURING THE EOC OPERATIONS, THE AMOUNT WE PAY FOR EACH LEASE AND THE BEGINNING AND END DATE OF EACH LEASE TO INCLUDE CURRENT AND FORMER LEASES. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A WRITTEN REPORT ON THE OCTOBER 17th, 2024 AGENDA. AND THE REASON I QUANTITY IT THIS IS BECAUSE DURING MY PREP MEETING I FOUND OUT THAT WE ARE NOW HOUSING THE WATER FOLKS THERE. SO WE HAVE LIKE FOUR LEASE WAS THAT ONE BUILDING. I WANT TO FIND OUT, THIS KIND OF GOES WITH YOURS BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE A WRITTEN REPORT ON THE SAME DATE. SO IT SHOULD HELP THAT CONVERSATION GO FORWARD. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN HENDERSON. ALL IN FAVOR? YES MA'AM. >>LYNN HURTAK: LAST YEAR, AFTER THE BUDGET CYCLE, WE ASKED TO HAVE THE COVER SHEET AMENDED SOMEWHAT, AND LAST YEAR ASKED FOR BOTH THE ACCOUNT NUMBERS THAT FUNDS ARE TO AND FROM AND I ASKED FOR THE ANYPLACE. THE NAMES NEVER HAPPENED. SO I AM GOING TO MOVE AGAIN, I MOVE TO HAVE AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEETS AND RESOLUTIONS TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: THE NAME AND THE ACCOUNT NUMBER THAT THE FUND WERE TRANSFERRED TO, AND THE NAME AND ACCOUNT NUMBER THAT THE FUNDS ARE TRANSFERRED FROM, TO BEGIN WITH OCTOBER 17, 2024 UNDER THE PROJECTED COST PORTION OF THE COVER SHEET. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? >>LYNN HURTAK: I HAVE COMMUNICATED AND THIS GOES BACK TO ITEM NUMBER 36 FROM THIS MORNING, COMMUNICATED WITH MS. COULD PESKY AND DIRECTOR MULKEY REGARDING LIGHTING INSTALLATION PROJECT, SO THROUGH FY 2026 WE HAVE A $6.3 MILLION BUDGET WHICH IS A SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT FOR THIS DEPARTMENT. SO I MOVE TO HAVE TONY MULKEY PROVIDE A QUARTERLY WRITTEN REPORT STARTING ON JANUARY 1, 2025, TO INCLUDE THE LOCATIONS WITH ESTIMATED START AND END DATES, AND BUDGET PROJECTIONS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER HURTAK, SECOND BY -- ALL IN FAVOR? >>LYNN HURTAK: IT STARTS IN JANUARY. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FROM HIM. WE ALWAYS CHECK DATES. THAT'S WHEN THEY ARE REALLY FAR IN ADVANCE. THAT'S WHAT HE SAID WOULD BE GOOD. AND THEN TODAY, AS PART OF A WRITTEN REPORT, WE GOT THE QUARTERLY UPDATED STORMWATER. HOWEVER, IN THE QUARTERLY UPDATED STORMWATER SUBMITTED TO WRITTEN STAFF REPORT TODAY THE SOUTH HOWARD TIMELINE STATES THAT THE PROJECT IS ON HOLD. PEOPLE -- THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REACHED OUT TO ME TO REQUEST AN UPDATE SO I REACHED OUT TO MR. BIDAY, AND THERE ARE CURRENTLY NOW SEVEN IN PERSON STAFF REPORTS ON OCTOBER 17 BUT ONE OF THEM IS THE MOBILITY DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE A FIVE MINUTE QUARTERLY UPDATE ON ROAD REPAIRS. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE SOUTH HOWARD FLOOD RELIEF PROJECT TO THE IN-PERSON STAFF REPORT. >> SECOND. >>LYNN HURTAK: THE ONLY REASON IS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT THIS GOT CAUSED. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I THINK NOVEMBER 7 IS WIDE OPEN. >>LYNN HURTAK: THEN I WILL MOVE IT TO NOVEMBER 7th. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MOTION AND SECOND. YES? >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I HAD HEARD THAT THERE WAS A PRESENTATION COMING UP ANYWAY ON THIS BUT I AM HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS. @THE OT THERE ARE FOLKS THAT DON'T LIKE THE SPECIFIC ROUTE, WHEN YOU DO ENGINEERING, YOU SHOULD NEVER PRESENT ONE ROUTE, AND THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT OBJECT TO THE PARTICULAR ROUTE THAT WAS APPROACHED. AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS ASK THE ADMINISTRATION TO PRESENT A DESIGN-ONLY OR DESIGN TO PUBLIC INPUT PROJECT, NOT A DESIGN BUILD, BECAUSE ZAIN BUILD IMPLIES THAT THEY ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH EITHER ONE ROUTE OR LIMITED NUMBER OF ROUTES. SO I WANTED TO PUT THAT THE OUT IN ANTICIPATION OF THIS DISCUSSION. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WANT WANT TO FIX THIS RIGHT AWAY AND PEOPLE THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ROUTE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T INADVERTENTLY PUSH THIS IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WE TOOK A VOTE AND DIDN'T SUPPORT THAT. >>MARTIN SHELBY: I HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. THERE IS A WRITTEN STAFF REPORT ON OCTOBER 17th, STAFF TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN REPORT BY USING BRISTOL AVENUE AND BYPASS THE NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH BY THE WAY, THE MOTION DOES NOT STATE WHICH NEIGHBORHOODS. SO I DON'T KNOW. >>LYNN HURTAK: BUT THAT'S A WRITTEN REPORT. >>MARTIN SHELBY: RIGHT. AS THEY WOULD WORK TO BEING ALLEVIATE THE FLOOD BEING ISSUES AND COUNCIL WILL NOT PUT ON A PLAN THAT PLACES -- >>LYNN HURTAK: OKAY. SO WHAT I WILL DO, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I WILL TAKE THAT WRITTEN REPORT AND ADD IT -- WOULD YOU MIND IF THE WRITTEN REPORT IS ADDED TO THE VERBAL REPORT FROM MR. BHIDE ON NOVEMBER 9th SO WE ARE ALL TALKING ABOUT IT THE SAME TIME? >>BILL CARLSON: THAT'S THE ONE THAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT BUT I COULDN'T FIND IT REAL FAST. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND? >>LYNN HURTAK: THE MOTION IS FOR MR. BHIDE -- I HAVE THIS WRITTEN DOWN SO I WILL HAND IT TO YOU -- THAT MR. BHIDE PROVIDE US AN UPDATE ON THE SOUTH HOWARD FLOOD RELIEF PROJECT, AN INNER PERSON STAFF REPORT ON NOVEMBER 7th, AND TO FOLD IN COUNCILMAN CARLSON'S OCTOBER 7th -- 17th WRITTEN STAFF REPORT. ON THE SAME ITEMS. >>MARTIN SHELBY: WILL THIS BE PART OF THE QUARTERLY UPDATE? >>LYNN HURTAK: NO, THE QUARTERLY UPDATE -- >>MARTIN SHELBY: OH, NOVEMBER 7th. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? >>LYNN HURTAK: THEN MY FINAL ONE, TODAY IS MARATHON ALCOHOL BEVERAGE SESSION REMINDED ME ON JANUARY 25, 2024 WE HAD AN AB SUSPENSION HEARING FOR CIGARS AT 2401 SNORT FLORIDA AVENUE AND AT THAT TIME IT CAME DO LIFE THAT WORK HAD BEEN DONE WITHOUT PERMITS AND THE BUSINESS WAS OPERATING WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. I WANT STAFF TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THEIR VIOLATIONS ON OCTOBER 3rd, 2024. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON. >>BILL CARLSON: I HAVE FOUR PROPOSALS. BUT NEXT WEEK, THERE'S ALSO DISCUSSION ABOUT PARKING FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. YOU ALL HEARD IN PUBLIC COMMENT THIS MORNING THAT PEOPLE THAT LIVE ADJACENT TO THE RITZ CARLTON PROJECT ARE UPSET BECAUSE THEY CLAIM THE STAFF APPROVED A PARKING LAYOUT FOR CONSTRUCTION THAT TAKES UP THEIR SPACE. AND THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING HAPPENING ALL OVER THE CITY. FOLKS KNOW THAT CONSTRUCTION IS COMING. BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, ALFRED EXCHANGE A FEW YEARS AGO WHEN THE BUILDING WAS BUILT ACROSS THE STREET NOBODY EXPECTED THEY WOULD SHUT DOWN THE ROADS AND SOMETHING LIKE 50, 06 PARKING SPACES SO THERE'S A DISCUSSION TO TALK ABOUT HOW COULD CITY COUNCIL BETTER REGULATOR GET INVOLVED WITH CONSTRUCTION PARKING, SO PLEASE THINK ABOUT THAT. AND DON'T FORGET ON THE SOUTH HOWARD PROJECT, IT MIGHT NEED TO BE RENAMED BECAUSE THERE'S OPPOSITION TO IT GOING ON HOWARD, BUT AT THE VERY LEAST WE NEED TO COME UP WITH A DESIGN TO PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS INSTEAD OF PUSHING JUST ONE THING. ALSO, I SENT TWO OF THESE OUT ALREADY TO YOU ALL SO YOU HAVE SEEN THEM. BUT THERE WAS A PUBLIC MEETING ON TUESDAY NIGHT WHILE WE WERE IN OUR BUDGET HEARING, AND ON HARBOUR ISLAND TO DISCUSS A TRAFFIC LIGHT AT GRECO PLAZA ON FRANKLIN STREET, THAT THE HARBOR ISLAND PEOPLE DON'T WANT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ASK MOBILITY STAFF TO APPEAR ON OCTOBER 3rd WITH DOCUMENTATION INCLUDING TRAFFIC WARRANTS, SUPPORTING THE DECISION TO PUT A STOPLIGHT ON FRANKLIN AND WATER STREET AND THE PROPOSED LIGHT AT DICK GRECO PLAZA. I WOULD ASK LEGAL STAFF TO APPEAR WITH A LIST OF ACTIONS CITY COUNCIL CAN TAKE TO PREVENT THE INSTALLATION OF THESE STOP LIGHTS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON, SECONDED BY VIERA. >>GWEN HENDERSON: I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION, COUNCILMAN CARLSON. WHEN YOU SAY THAT THEY DON'T WANT A TRAFFIC LIGHT, I NEED YOU TO CLARIFY THAT. IS IT A GROUP OF PEOPLE OR HOW MANY PEOPLE, OR IS IT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY? >>BILL CARLSON: I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE ANYWAY TO POLL THE COMMUNITY BUT I CAN TELL YOU IT'S A LARGE NUMBER OF FOLKS. YES. AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE MERITS OF IT ON THAT DAY. BUT THE POINT IS TO BRING THE STAFF BACK SO WE CAN HAVE A PUBLIC CONVERSATION. WE WERE NOT ABLE TO PARTICIPATE ON TUESDAY NIGHT SO THIS WAY WE WILL BE ABLE TO AND THE COMMUNITY CAN COME, THOSE WHO ARE IN FAVOR CAN SHOW UP. >>GWEN HENDERSON: I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHEN YOU SAY ALL, I WANT TO MAKE SURE HOW MANY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? >>BILL CARLSON: THEN NUMBER TWO, THE FIRST ONE WAS JUST A COMMENT. NUMBER TWO IS THIS ISSUE OF CEMETERIES KEEPS COMING UP. AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE HAD PRIVATE OWN R OWNERS OF CEMETERIES. SOME OF THEM HAVE A LOT OF MONEY, SOME DON'T. SOME ARE FOR PROFIT, SOME ARE NONPROFIT, SOME ARE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. I DON'T KNOW SOME OF UP THAT WEREN'T HERE MAY NOT REMEMBER BUT UNDER OVER HERE THERE WERE CEMETERIES FOUND UNDER THE EXPRESSWAY. THERE ARE SOME IN WEST TAMPA. SO THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE JUST ABOUT ONE ORGANIZATION. I THINK ULTIMATELY THE CITY -- I THINK THE CITY SHOULD END UP OWNING EITHER THE CEMETERIES EASEMENT TO THE CEMETERIES SO NOBODY CAN BUILD ON TOP OF IT BUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST IS SOME PROPERTY OWNERS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE MONEY, CAN JUST GIVE THEM UP AND NOT DO ANYTHING WITH THEM, BUT NOT EVERYBODY CAN AFFORD TO DO THAT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO R TO MAKE A MOTION TO ASK CITY STAFF TO HELP COUNCIL WITH A FEBRUARY 27 WORKSHOP DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF CREATING A CITY FUND TO ASSIST PROPERTY OWNERS WITH AN ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE IF A PROPERTY CONTAINS LOST GRAVES AND DIVIDE THE PROPERTY AND/OR EASEMENT TO PROTECT THE GRAVES, SO IT WOULD HELP PAY FOR -- WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU ARE AN INDEPENDENT PROPERTY OWNER, AND WE HAVE HAD SYNAGOGUE COME BEFORE US, RIGHT? SO WHATEVER THE COST IS OF GROUND PENETRATING RADAR, THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. BUT THEN IF THEY PAY FOR IT, IF THE PUBLIC DOESN'T AGREE WITH THE RESPONSE TO IT, THEN THEY HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN POTENTIALLY. IF THE CITY PAYS FOR IT AND OFFERS TO RUN IT, THEN AT LEAST THAT'S ALLEVIATING THAT OBJECTION THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE. AND IT MIGHT HELP US TO BETTER THE GET CONTROL OF SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES. >> I'LL SECOND. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? YOU KNOW, IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WE DON'T CARE, YOU KNOW. I THINK WE GO ABOVE AND BEYOND WHEN IT COMES -- WE JUST HAD THIS MOTION. I THINK -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ARE WE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: NO, WE DON'T NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT. [ LAUGHTER ] >>BILL CARLSON: TWO MORE THINGS. AFTER THE MEETING AT LUNCH, WE HAD LIKE SEVEN OR EIGHT CULTS HERE FOR THE WASTE ENERGY PLANT. AND YOU ALL KNOW A YEAR OR SO AGO I ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 20 YEAR PLAN, WHAT'S THE 30-YEAR PLAN, AND WE DIDN'T GET COMPLETE ANSWERS. IN FIVE MINUTES, I TALKED TO THEM, AND THEY HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. THEY HAVE GREAT ANSWERS, LIKE THE QUESTION I ASKED THIS MORNING, DID WE DO AN ANALYSIS TO SEE WHAT IT WOULD COST FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO RUN THIS INSTEAD OF US DOING IT? AND THEY SAID YES. AND SO OF THE NUMBERS THEY TALKED ABOUT PUBLICLY, BUT JUST IN FIVE MINUTES OF TALKING TO THEM, THEY HAVE THE NUMBERS, THEY DID THE ANALYSIS, AND BASED ON THE CURRENT NUMBERS THAT THEY SHOWED THIS MORNING, THIS PROJECT IS BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLIC THAT THE CITY TOOK IT OVER. THIS IS A POSITIVE CASE STUDY. AND IF YOU COMPARE IT, ASKED THE QUESTION OF THEM, IF YOU COMPARE IT TO THE COST TODAY, IF WE HAD TO HIRE ONE OF THOSE COMPANIES TO TAKE IT OVER TODAY, WHAT WOULD THAT COST BE? BECAUSE THE COST HAVE GONE WAY, WAY UP. WHAT IT WILL SHOW BASED ON WHAT THEY TOLD ME THIS MORNING IS THAT THE CITY MADE A GREAT DECISION. I WAS NOT INVOLVED WITH THE DECISION. I THINK I HELPED VOTE FOR IT. BUT IT TURNS OUT THE CITY MADE A GREAT DECISION TO DO IT. I THINK WE NEED TO SHOW TRANSPARENCY IN THOSE NUMBERS, BECAUSE IT WILL HELP THE PUBLIC GAIN CONFIDENCE THAT THE CITY DID THE RIGHT THING. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ASK CITY STAFF AND THE CONSULTANTS TO PRESENT ON FEBRUARY 20th AS TO A COMPARISON OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECTED COST OF THE WASTE TO ENERGY PLANT TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR'S OFFER AT THE TIME AND COMPARE THOSE TO THE ACTUAL COSTS AS OF THIS DATE, THAT DATE, AND THE CURRENT PRIVATE SECTOR COSTS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION. AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? >>BILL CARLSON: FEBRUARY 20. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: CAN I ASK A QUESTION? TO WHAT THEN? BECAUSE IT SOUND LIKE IT'S AN AWFUL LOT OF STAFF WORK AND MONEY. >>BILL CARLSON: I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT HAPPENED WHEN YOU WERE HEAR BUT IN THE BEGINNING, YOU ASKED ABOUT PROJECTS, AND THE PUBLIC WAS VERY CONCERNED BECAUSE WE HAD ABOUT FOUR DIFFERENT SIGs SESSIONS WHEREOF WE TALKED ABOUT IT. AND THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT WERE NOT ANSWERED. SO THERE WERE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE TRANSPARENCY AT THAT TIME. IN TALKING TO STAFF AND THE CONSULTANTS THIS MORNING, ALL THAT DATA EXIST BUT IT'S NEVER BEEN PRESENTED TO US OR TO THE PUBLIC. AND SINCE IT'S A VERY POSITIVE SUCCESS STORY, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE IT PRESENTED. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? ANYTHING ELSE? >>BILL CARLSON: I SENT THIS ONE OUT TOO. I DON'T AGREE WITH HAVING A QUOTE-UNQUOTE CRA IN THE SULPHUR SPRINGS AREA, BUT I DID TALK TO THE CFO ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY, AND OTHERS ABOUT CREATING A BUDGET FOCUS AREA OR A VIRTUAL CRA, AND SO THAT WOULD BE WE WOULD CHECK THE AD VALOREM TAXES THAT ARE COLLECTED WITHIN A CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIC AREA NOW, AND WE WOULD TRACK IT EVERY YEAR JUST AS A SEPARATE BUDGET ITEM THAT WE WOULD TRACK, AND THEN LEE COSTS OF WHAT WE ARE SPENDING IN SULPHUR SPRINGS RIGHT NOW, AND THEN TRACK THAT EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER. BUT UNLIKE A CRA, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DO ANYTHING, BUT WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AS INFORMATION TO DECIDE IF WE WANT TO SPEND MORE OR LESS. SO IF SOME BIG DEVELOPER MOVES IN AND MAKES A BIG VOTE., THEN THE AD VALOREM TAXES GO UP AND WE COULD DECIDE TO SPEND MORE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ASK THE CFO TO RESEARCH THE POSSIBILITY OF CREATING A VIRTUAL CRA OR BUDGET FOCUS AREA FOR SULPHUR SPRINGS AND REPORT BACK TO CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 5th. THE IDEA WOULD BE TO DRAW A BOUNDARY AROUND SULPHUR SPRINGS AS IF IT WAS A CRA DISTRICT AND COUNT THE CURRENT AND FOUGHT TAXES, AND THIS WOULD BE AN ANNUAL BUDGETING TOOL TO ENABLE CITY COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION TO DETERMINE HOW MORE INVESTMENTS SHOULD BE MADE IN SUM FUR SPRINGS, UNLIKE BE A REAL CRA THE BUDGET WOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO ANY NEW AD VALOREM TAXES OR THE LACK OF THEM. IN ADDITION THE CITY WOULD NOT BE CONSTRAINED BY CRA RULES OR REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS ONLY THE ASKING THE CFO TO TALK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF IT AND HE AND I ALREADY DISCUSSED IT. IT IS POSSIBLE. WE ARE NOT ASKING TO DO A REPORT YET. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A SECOND FOR DISCUSSION? IT'S GOING TO BE HENDERSON. HURTAK. THEN CLENDENIN. AND THEN VIERA. >>GWEN HENDERSON: I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING THIS MOTION IN WRITING TO US BECAUSE IT GAVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO A LITTLE DIGGING. AND ON SEPTEMBER 5th WE APPROVED $250,000 FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN FOR SULPHUR SPRINGS. AND SO LET THAT PROCESS PLAY ITSELF OUT. WE HAVE ALREADY APPROVED THAT. THERE'S MONEY ALLOCATED FOR IT. AND SO IF WE JUST ALLOWED THAT FUNCTION TO WORK AND TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED, THEN MAYBE WE CAN LOOK AT A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CFO TO GET INVOLVED WITH SOME ADDITIONAL RESEARCH. I JUST THINK THAT WE HAVE ALREADY INVESTED IN A PLAN THAT WE JUST APPROVED. WHAT'S TODAY? THE 8th, LIKE TWO WEEKS AGO. I THINK THAT IS A BETTER OPPORTUNITY FOR US BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY DIRECTED STAFF, AND I THINK THERE'S A CONSULTANT INVOLVED, TOO AS WELL. SO I DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT IT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN. THANK YOU. >>LYNN HURTAK: I HAD THE SAME SENTIMENT. WE JUST APPROVED THIS. BUT I THINK THAT YOU COULD TAKE YOUR MOTION AND COMBINE IT AS PART OF THE ACTION PLAN TO WORK WITH THE CONSULTANTS, BECAUSE I THINK THE IDEA OF SEEING WHAT THAT TEXT REVENUE WOULD BE BUT THEY ALREADY HAVE AN OUTLINE OF THE AREA. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU WORK WITH THEM AND THEN COME BACK AND HAVE YOURS BE IN TAN DENY WITH IT. IT WOULD BE A SEPARATE MOTION OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE THAT'S NOT PART OF THEIR SCOPE OF WORK, BUT TO IN THAT SAME LIKE VEIN. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA, BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T COMPETE WITH THE ACTION PLAN THAT'S COMING. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I THINK HAVING THE DISCUSSION, OF COURSE, IT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT PREMATURE AS THE CITY COUNCIL PERSON JUST DISCUSSED. ALSO, ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE, CLEARLY SULPHUR SPRINGS NEEDS A LOT OF INVESTMENT, PROBABLY MORE INVESTMENT THAN WE CAN AFFORD, AND WE ALREADY KNOW OUR BUDGET IS SO CONSTRAINED, GOD HELP US IF THE C.I.T. DOESN'T PASS. BUT WHO IS LEFT TO PAY THE BILLS AS WE CREATE ALL OF THESE DISTRICTS. THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE -- THE REST OF THE CITY IS GOING TO BE LACKING. BUT WE ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO INVESTING. MONEY IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY AN ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED AREA, THEY PROBABLY DON'T CREATE THAT TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT. IF WE ARE ABLE TO AGREE UP MONEY SOMEWHERE ELSE, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO WHAT IS COLLECTED IN THAT AREA BUT IT MAY BE AN AREA THAT NEEDS MORE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO BE ABLE TO GET TO WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE. I THINK OUR FUTURE LAND USE CHANGES UP THERE ARE GOING TO HELP SIGNIFICANTLY, IF WE CAN ENCOURAGE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, CONSTRUCTION IN THAT AREA, BRING PEOPLE UP THERE, INCREASE THE POPULATION LEVELS, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF DESERT AREAS OF UNDEVELOPED OR UNDERDEVELOPED AREAS, AND IF WE CAN BRING PEOPLE THERE, TO RESOLVE SOME OF THE ISSUES ITSELF. SO I THINK IT'S KIND OF PREMATURE. I AM GOING TO GO WITH THE OTHER TWO COUNCIL PERSONS WERE SAYING. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. SO I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS. I WROTE DOWN SOME NOTES WHEN THE MOTION STARTED. OBVIOUSLY COUNCILWOMAN HENDERSON, SHE'S THE DISTRICT PERSON OVER THEREBY IN SULPHUR SPRINGS, AND IN HER CAPACITY HERE AT CRA. THIS TO ME SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE BETTER WORKED OUT, COUNCIL REQUEST TO MAYBE HAVE IT IN APRIL OR SO, APRIL-MAY, THAT THE ADMINISTRATION REPORT ON WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO SPEND IN SULPHUR SPRINGS EACH YEAR. I MOTIONED INFORM THAT IN THE BUDGET THIS YEAR AND WE CAN LOOK AT THAT. IT WOULD BE AT THE LEAST DUPLICATIVE OF THE STUDY THAT COUNCILWOMAN HENDERSON AND OTHERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT. ANOTHER BIG CHALLENGE, I WILL SAY IT, LOOK, THE CRA HAD TWO VOTES RIGHT? I SUPPORT TALKING ABOUT IT. BUT THE CRA HAS CLEARLY SPOKEN. THIS BODY HAS CLEARLY SPOKEN. I ACCEPT THAT IT'S NOT TIME TO OPEN UP THE AGREEMENT AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, WHICH IS GOING TO -- WITH A LACK OF SUPPORT WASTE STAFF'S TIME, AND THERE'S A LOST CONCERNS THERE. I OBVIOUSLY ACCEPT THAT 100%. MY CHALLENGE IS THIS SEAMS TO BE MORE RESPONSIVE TO WANTING TO UNDERMINE A FUTURE MOVEMENT FOR SULPHUR SPRINGS CRA WHICH I DO BELIEVE IS INEVITABLE AND I DO THINK IF COUNCILMAN CARLSON WERE TO MAKE A MOTION ASKING TO HAVE THE ADMINISTRATION REPORT ON WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE BUDGETING IN SULPHUR SPRINGS A COUPLE MONTHS BEFORE THE BUDGET SO THAT WE CAN INFLUENCE THAT, IT WOULD BE TRULY IN SUPPORT OF THAT. AGAIN THE CRA HAS SPOKEN. I KNOW THERE WAS ALSO A REQUEST FOR AN EXPANSION OF THE CRA OVER IN YBOR CITY. I THINK THE SPACE AS WELL AS FOR SULPHUR SPRINGS. SO I RESPECT THAT EVEN THOUGH AGAIN I SUPPORT THAT. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT INCLUDING DIFFERENT MEASURES AFTER THIS STUDY IS DONE, AND EVERYTHING. BUT AGAIN, IF A MOTION WERE TO BE MADE, COUNCILMAN CARLSON, ON TAKING A LOOK AT REQUESTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATION IN THE BUDGET, WE CAN DO THAT. I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE MOTION. I THINK I WILL ANSWER THE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE IN MIND. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE ADMINISTRATION TO GIVE US A COMPLETE EXPENDITURES OF WHAT THEY HAVE DONE AND THE EXPENDITURES IN DISTRICT 4, 5, 6 AND 7 WHICH COMPLIES OF THE WHOLE CITY AND YOU WILL HAVE ALL THOSE ANSWERS. THEY WILL GIVE IT TO YOU. THE COMPUTER WILL GIVE IT TO YOU. I WOULD SAY WITHIN TWO WEEKS OR ONE WEEK YOU WILL HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. >>BILL CARLSON: CRA FUNDS? >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: NO, THE CRA FUNDS EXPENDED BY THE CITY IN 4, 5, 6 AND 7. THE CRA FUND, THAT'S ANOTHER ANIMAL. >> [OFF MICROPHONE] >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I DON'T KNOW, BUT THEY SAY THAT SULPHUR SPRINGS, THE LAST TIME I LOOKED AT THE DISTRICT, IT RAN STRAIGHT OUT FLORIDA AVENUE. BUT IT MIGHT HAVE CHANGED. I DON'T KNOW. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN CARLSON. >>BILL CARLSON: IF I CAN JUST RESPOND. THIS IS NOT CREATING A CRA OR ACTION PLAN. IT'S SIMPLY ASKING THE STAFF TO TALK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ANNUALLY GIVING US TWO NUMBERS, HOW MUCH AD VALOREM TAX IT GENERATES IN SULPHUR SPRINGS, AND NUMBER TWO, HOW MUCH IS BEING SPENT. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THOSE TWO NUMBERS WOULD BE TOOLS THAT CAN BE USED ON ANY OF THE THINGS THAT YOU ALL TALK ABOUT. IF I STILL HAVE A SECOND, MY MOTION WILL HOLD. I JUST WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD ASK FOR THESE TWO NUMBERS SO SEC WE CAN HAVE A LONGER DISCUSSION. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I THOUGHT I MADE A MOTION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN CARLSON. >>BILL CARLSON: JUST HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD ASK ABOUT THESE TWO NUMBERS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. DECEMBER 5th. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN CARLSON, SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>LYNN HURTAK: YES. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: NEVER HURTS TO HAVE DISCUSSION, YES. >>GWEN HENDERSON: NO. >>LUIS VIERA: NO. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: NO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED WITH HENDERSON, MIRANDA AND VIERA VOTING NO. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION SO WE CAN GET ALL THE EXPENDITURES OF 4, 5, 6, 7, HAVE THE ADMINISTRATION GIVE IT TO US IN TWO WEEKS. WRITTEN REPORT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MOTION AND SECOND. >> I THINK WITHOUT HAVING CRA MEMBERS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES REALLY MEANINGLESS. YOU NEED TO HAVE TAXPAYER -- >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: WELL THAT'S -- >>> CAN WE DO IT FOR NOVEMBER 7th IT? >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: NOVEMBER 7th IS FINE. >> SO WE KNOW HOW MUCH TAXPAYER MONEY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THIS IS FOR NOVEMBER 2nd UNDER STAFF REPORT. WRITTEN. THE 7th. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL DAY LONG I HAVE WAITED. >>LUIS VIERA: THIS WON'T BE ANY DISCUSSION. I MENTIONED IT. AGAIN I WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THIS FROM COUNCILMAN CARLSON OR ANYBODY ELSE. I WILL MAKE IT. WHICH I WOULD ASK ON MAY 1st OF 2025 THE ADMINISTRATION COME TO TAMPA CITY COUNCIL ON WHAT IT INTENDS TO PUT IN THAT YEAR'S FISCAL BUDGET FOR THE SULPHUR SPRINGS AREA, JUST SO THAT WE HAVE A GOOD WORKING ROAD MAP OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SO WE CAN REALLY CONCENTRATE ON THAT AREA TO BE DO WHAT WE CAN. AGAIN, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRA OR UNDERMINING OR SUPPORTING THE CRA. COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN ON THAT. JUST HELPING THE AREA. THAT'S ALL I CARE ABOUT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. YES? NO? ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE A COUPLE OF ITEMS. >>BILL CARLSON: WAIT, WAIT. I RECOGNIZE COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I HAVE WAITED NINE HOURS. ANYWAY, I MET WITH ADRI A CHOLINE A AND JEAN DUNCAN AND THEY SHOWED ME AN IDEA ABOUT MOVING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS FROM THE THIRD FLOOR TO THE FIRST FLOOR, AND THE FIRST FLOOR BEING THIS BACK CORNER HERE BASICALLY FACING WHERE THE MAYOR'S OFFICE IS, WHERE THE FOUNTAINS ARE AT. THEY SAID THEY HAVE 1.12 MILLION NOW BUT THEY NEED ANOTHER MILLION DOLLARS. YOU KNOW, I HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS. FIRST, COUNCIL OFFICES AND CHAMBERS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ON THE THIRD FLOOR. SECOND, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IT COSTS I THINK IS INSANE. THIRD, I GOT HERE REAL EARLY TODAY AND I WALKED AROUND THESE CHAMBERS AND LOOKED AT WHAT WE CAN DO REMAINING IN THESE CHAMBERS. I THINK WE SHOULD DO REPLACING THE SEATS, REPLACING THE CARPET, THERE'S CRACKED PAINT AND PLASTER THROUGHOUT, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE DRYWALL HAS BEEN REPAIRED. I THINK WE CAN SPRUCE UP THIS AREA HERE. THE CLERK'S OFFICES WERE RECENTLY DONE. THEY CAME OUT BEAUTIFUL. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT IF WE ARE GOING TO SPEND MONEY, RENOVATE THE THIRD FLOOR, BUT TAKING US DOWN BELOW, I HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS. SECURITY CONCERNS. MONETARY CONCERNS. AND WHATNOT. I AM NOT HERE FOR A DEEP, DEEP DISCUSSION. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE IS THAT EACH ONE OF US REACH OUT TO MS. COLINA SO SHE CAN SHOW YOU THE RENDERINGS. NOT REALLY A MOTION. JUST A SUGGESTION. MR. CARLSON WAS FIRST. >>BILL CARLSON: THIS IS THE FIRST I HEARD ABOUT IT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: COUNCILMAN CARLSON. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE KNEW ABOUT THIS IDEA. BUT WE DO KNOW THAT THE AREA OVER HERE IS WHERE THE PUBLIC EXPERIENCES COMING BEFORE US. SO ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO IMPROVE THE SPACE AS ONE OF THE PUBLIC EXPERIENCES, I THINK, IS A GOOD IDEA. >>LYNN HURTAK: I 100% GROW. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I RECOGNIZE COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: I WAS LOOKING AT HIM. I APOLOGIZE. SAFETY IS THE NUMBER ONE CONCERN. I ACTUALLY TALKED TO THE FOLKS DOWNSTAIRS AND THEY AGREED. AND I HAVE BEEN ASKED NOT TO THE GO INTO DETAIL BECAUSE OF OUR SECURITY MEASURES BUT I AM VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH BEING ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND HAVING A WINDOW THERE. I THINK THAT'S FOR ME IS A WILDLY UNSAFE. BUT FOR $1.2 MILLION, I THINK WE CAN MAYBE BRING MR. SHELBY IN A LITTLE BIT, OR WE COULD ADD SOME PERMANENT THINGS FOR STAFF. I MEAN, THERE'S THINGS WE COULD DO TO SPRUCE THIS PLACE UP. BUT I AGREE WITH YOU. I DID NOT KNOW THE HISTORY THAT WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN HERE. SO I DO THINK -- >>> ORIGINALLY, AND THIS IS 50 YEARS AGO, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE WAS HERE OF THE EVERYTHING WAS ON THE THIRD FLOOR. WE HAD A MATCHING TWIN BUILDING NEXT DOOR WITH A PARKING LOT. >>LYNN HURTAK: SO YOU ARE TELLING ME THE MAYOR WASN'T ON THE 8th FLOOR? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THE MAYOR WAS HERE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I'M SORRY, COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. [SOUNDING GAVEL] [ LAUGHTER ] >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I'M TELLING YOU, HOW MUCH DOES PAINT COST? CHARLIE AND I CAN GO TO HOME DEPOT AND ON A SUNDAY PAINT THIS ROOM. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: MR. MANISCALCO, ARE WE HAVING A DISCUSSION OR MOVING THIS TO A WORKSHOP? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I AM JUST ASKING COUNCIL MEMBERS TO REACH OUT TO MS. COLINA.% NO MOTION NECESSARY. AND THEN ONE LAST THING. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I JUST WANT COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC THAT WE WILL BE WORKING OUT THE KIOSK. IT'S AN iPad WHERE YOU TYPE IN YOUR NAME. IT GOES TO THE CLERK. AND THEN IT GIVES ME A LIST. VERY ORGANIZED. THEN COUNCILMEMBER HURTAK BROUGHT IT UP. I PRACTICED ON THE TECHNOLOGY YESTERDAY. MR. SHELBY WAS THERE. MS. EDWARDS. IT'S NOT VERY COMPLICATED. BUT I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW. THIS IS JUST TO TEST IT OUT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ARE YOU RECOGNIZED? ARE YOU RECOGNIZED? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: CAN I GET A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE? >> I MAKE THAT MOTION. >> SECOND. >>MARTIN SHELBY: JUST A REMINDER THAT YOU HAD SOME THINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE TODAY BUT IT'S QUASI JUDICIAL. YOU HAVE AN APPEAL PERIOD. YOU MAY BE APPROACHED BY THOSE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT. I WOULD ADVISE AGAINST IT. PLEASE REMAIN MINDFUL THAT YOU ARE NOT TO SPEAK TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT ANYTHING. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: CAN I GET A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE? >>GWEN HENDERSON: WE DIABETES THAT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? WE ARE ADJOURNED. [MEETING ADJOURNED]