►
From YouTube: TCC 12/1/22 Pt.2
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
C
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
council
members,
this
is
Miss
Haley,
Johnston
and
I.
Don't
know
if
you've
had
the
pleasure
of
meeting
her
and
working
with
her,
but
she
has
served
the
citizens
of
Tampa
well.
I
am
proud
to
have
met
her
I'm,
proud
to
have
worked
with
her.
She
has
been
the
legislative
aide
for
me
for
how
long
now,
six
eight
four
months,
six
months
since
August
but
you're
part
of
the
family
and
I,
want
to
thank
you
for
being
part
of
the
family.
She
is
a
junior
at
USF,
go
Bulls
and
again
Miss
Johnson.
C
C
And
she
is
leaving
to
pursue
her
studies,
so
we,
this
is
your
moment
anything
you'd
like
to
say
I,.
D
E
D
A
H
D
J
It
so
Deputy
Administrator,
Elise,
drumko,
Bob
Rosner,
will
come
before
you
today
with
an
update
to
the
CBA
comments
that
were
provided
to
us
at
the
last
meeting.
So
he'll
provide
a
brief
overview
overview
if
you'd
like
for
us
to
go
through
all
the
comments
and
and
then
we'll
let
Susan
close
us
out.
K
Next
slide,
please
I,
guess
I'm
doing
it
there
we
go
good
afternoon.
Thank
you
for
having
me
here.
We
came
we're
coming
back
today
with
a
first
reading
of
the
ordinance
that
you
requested,
and
we
took
all
the
the
comments
that
you'd
made
and
all
the
public
comments
that
were
made
and
enclose
those
in
a
memo,
and
this
presentation
is
going
to
identify
what
was
different
from
our
first
presentation
to
today's
presentation.
K
K
So
where
we
we
heard,
you
is
where
we
changed
the
the
thresholds
where
the
minimum
amounts
are
at.
So
instead
of
one
two
and
our
two
four
and
eight,
we
went
with
five
million
as
the
the
beginning,
with
20
at
1
million.
So
if
someone
receives
a
million
dollars
on
a
five
million
dollar
project,
then
that
would
trigger
the
CBA
or
if
it's
an
automatic,
10
million
dollars.
That's
still
the
same.
So
that
is
the
big
piece
here
and
then
the
one
thing
is
is
that
was
asked
between?
K
Is
this
only
CRA,
or
is
this
only
City?
No,
it
is
now
combined.
That
was
one
of
the
questions
that
came
up
and
we
included
the
language
that
it's
either
or
because
the
incentive
could
come
from
either
place
so
we'll
move
on.
This
is
still
the
same.
The
pre,
the
pre-work,
is
still
the
same,
the
developer
so
on
this
chart.
This
shows
the
tiers
same
same
thing.
K
I
showed
in
the
first
one,
except
for
it's
extended
out
to
tier
one
tier
two
and
tier
three,
so
it's
five
million
10
million
and
25
million
instead
of
what
we
had
before
and
then
it
caps
out
between
10
million,
we
grazed
it
for
tier
two
for
20
million
and
for
tier
three
30
million,
so
that
moved
it
all
up
a
little
bit
so
that
we
can
be
a
fair
size.
Another
thing
that
was
brought
up
was
and
I
didn't
bolt
it
here
and
I
realized
I
missed.
K
That
was
on
the
MBE
slbe
requirements
that
in
working
with
our
Evo
Department
about
the
ordinance,
that's
already
in
place
for
that
that
there's
a
minimum
requirement
of
15,
and
then
we
put
stretch
goals
on
here
so
each
one
of
these
says
15
to
20
15
to
25
or
15
to
30,
depending
on
you
know
in
that
order
from
tier
one
through
tier
three.
So
in
order
to
be
compliant
with
that
ordinance,
that's
why
there's
two
numbers
on
there?
K
One
is
the
minimum
goal
and
one's
a
stretch
goal
other
than
that
everything
else
is
still
the
same
on
this
Matrix
and
this
is
taking
it
and
applying
it
to
a
project
that
we
did.
So
if
Rome
yard
came
to
us
when
it
was
not
an
RFP,
but
if
they
were
to
come
to
us,
we
were
valuing
the
18
Acres
at
about
a
million
and
a
half
an
acre
in
2020.,
and
so
that
would
give
us
around
a
you
know
over
20
27
million
dollar
project,
so
that
would
have
fit
cleanly
into
tier
two.
K
So
that's
how
this
is
highlighted
here
to
show
you
how
that
would
get
applied.
So
when
they
come
to
us
and
say
hey,
we
need
your
acreage.
We
want
it
for
free
or
we
want
it
for
a
dollar
an
acre
or
something
you'd
say.
Well,
their
difference
is
27
million.
You
would
fit
in
tier
two,
so
this
is
just
applying
it
and
giving
you
an
example
of
how
to
be
applied.
K
This
is
still
the
same
slide
and
I
highlighted
at
the
bottom.
Is
that
if
it's
located
in
the
CRA
District,
that's
cab,
that's
CRA!
Cac
members
would
be
eligible
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
you
saw
that
we
are
trying
to
incorporate
both
together.
Moving
on
this
is
still
the
same.
The
process
hadn't
changed,
except
for
who
gets
involved,
and
then
our
next
recommendations
is
the
approval
of
first
reading
today
and
then
proceeding
with
a
second
reading.
I
would
guess
on
the
fifth
but
I
think
that's
a
legislative
issue.
K
So
with
that
I
have
to
take
any
questions.
You
have.
K
I
As
you
remember
back
in
2019,
we
were
told
we
couldn't
do
this,
but
only
we
in
the
CRA
and
other
people
did
it
so
I
guess
we
kind
of
was
right.
We
get
go
that
we
could
do
it
so
I'm
glad
that
Mr
Travis
came
along
and
your
office
to
get
it
done
and
for
the
whole
city,
because
it
needs
to
be
done.
I
I'm
glad
that
I
was
able
to
put
this
on
the
table
and
this
Council
went
along
with
the
first
time
we
went
with
our
cras
I
think
it's
going
to
be
good
for
developers
as
well.
Absolutely
so
I
think
it's
a
win-win
for
all
parties,
but
definitely
win
for
communities
to
be
able
to
get
some
things
that
they
might
want
to
see,
and
you
know
get
a
lot
of
fussing
and
fighting
about
a
project.
I
That's
coming
in
their
Community
to
where
that
we're,
giving
some
dollars
to
a
project
they'll
be
able
to
talk
about
what
they'd
like
to
see
and
help
out
with
the
project
if
they
can
so
I,
think
it's
a
win-win
and
glad
we've
got
this
done
and
hopefully
we'll
be
able
to
go
and
move
this
forward.
It's
January
5th
the
quickest
day
we
get
a
second
reading
on
this.
K
L
M
Susan
Johnsonville
has
legal
department,
so
a
couple
of
things.
The
ordinance
that's
before
you
for
first
reading
today
does
incorporate
all
of
the
changes
and
revisions
that
were
that
we
based
on
council's
comments
at
the
workshop,
as
well
as
comments
from
the
public
so
I.
M
You
know
the
clerk
usually
announces
a
second
reading,
but
I
did
want
to
add
that,
in
addition,
you
know,
if
Council
does
the
first
reading
today
and
the
date
that
is
set
for
second
reading,
we
will
also
present
to
you
the
two
related
resolutions
that
we
presented
as
part
of
the
package
at
the
October
Workshop.
The
first
one
would
be
to
create
the
community
benefits
advisory
Council
for
each
each
project
and
describe
how
that
is
going
to
be.
M
M
C
Okay,
sound
like
you,
you
want
to
read
this.
You
want
to
read
it.
C
I
C
B
C
I
C
C
E
N
N
Oh
I'm,
so
sorry,
I'm,
Jennifer
Cowan,
with
Brian,
Miller
and
Olive,
was
retained
for
The
Limited
purpose
of
drafting
the
ordinances
that
would
reflect
the
five
Charter
revisions
that
this
Council
put
forth
in
drafting
those.
We
reviewed
the
meeting
videos,
the
summaries,
as
well
as
the
transcripts.
N
In
addition,
after
reviewing
all
of
that,
some
of
the
some
of
the
five
were
very
clear,
and
there
was
no
question
as
to
what
the
council's
intent
were.
There
were
others
that
we
believe
that
these
capture,
your
intent,
there
was
some
questions,
so
I
leave
it
to
the
council
to
determine
in
creating
these
ordinances.
We
did
review
this
both
with
your
City
attorney
and
your
city
council
attorney,
and
they
agree
that
these
ordinances
captured
the
council's
intent
so
to
the
first
one.
E
C
Sorry,
gallon
councilman
heart
attack,
you're
recognized.
F
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
for
Council
I
had
my
assistant,
Kelly
print
out
a
copy
of
each
ordinance
and
I
circled
the
actual
relevant
information.
So,
while
she's
talking
about
it,
I
will
pass
them
out.
So
everybody
gets
a
chance
to
actually
look
at
the
language.
Okay,
yeah
I
have
enough
for
one.
F
N
N
You'll
see
that
this
ordinance
was
revised
to
provide
for
the
hiring
of
legal
counsel,
who
is
not
a
city
employee
to
serve
as
an
I'm,
sorry
to
advise
the
citizens
review
board
for
the
Tampa
Police
Department.
N
That
is
what
the
the
language
shows.
In
addition
to
that.
One
other
point
that
was
discussed
with
both
the
City
attorney
and
the
city
council
attorney
is
that
there
is
an
existing
ordinance
that
deals
with
this
board
and
it's
codified
in
section
18-8
of
the
city's
code,
and
it
provides
for
legal
counsel
for
the
citizens
review
board.
N
So
should
this
board
desire,
they
could
also
amend
that
ordinance
to
provide
for
the
desired
legal
counsel
that
that
you
want,
and
that
would
allow
a
quicker
Amendment
and
potentially
at
you
know,
in
less
time
and
with
less
expense
than
going
to
referendum,
or
you
can
go
forward
with
the
charter
amendments.
That's
before
you.
C
O
Legal
accounts,
but
it
doesn't
say
what
the
start,
what
the
hourly
rate
is
going
to
be
doesn't
say
anything
about
the
council,
we're
going
to
hire
wherever
that
person
may
be.
N
It's
just
that
the
city
will
provide
that
Council
to
the
board
like
this
as
it's
written.
It
just
says
says
that
the
city
shall
provide
counsel.
So
in
many
other
instances
you
may
have
the
city
that
provides
Counsel
on
a
unique
issue.
For
instance
today
with
me
standing
before
you
and
having
drafted
these
ordinances,
this
was
done
under
a
special
counsel
agreement
that
we
have
with
the
city
and.
O
F
I
agree
with
some
of
the
speakers
from
earlier
this
morning,
because
the
entire
point
of
this
is
the
city
not
providing,
but
the
crb
able
to
retain
and
I
actually
have
the
language
for
the
other.
That
I
asked
this
to
be
based
on
the
Miami
city
code,
the
Orange
County
code
and
the
Key
West
Charter
and
the
Miami
city
code
starts
the
CIP
because
they
call
it
the
citizens.
F
I
can't
remember
the
exact
name,
but
they
call
it
the
CIP
instead
and
it
says
the
CIP
shall
hire
an
experienced
and
competent
attorney
at
law
in
the
Orange
County
code.
It
says
the
citizens
review
board
is
authorized
to
retain
legal
counsel
and
then
Key,
West
Charter
says
the
crb
May
retain
the
services
and
of
attorney
and
so
in
in
that
in
following
that
vein,
making
sure
that
it's
not
the
city,
that's
retaining,
but
the
board
to
keep
it
completely
autonomous.
P
Yeah
I'm
fine
with
that
I
mean
and
I,
like
councilwoman
hertek
I,
think
you
said
the
the
second
part
where
it
says
the
crb
is
authorized
to
so
they
may
do
so
and
with
regards
to
councilman
Miranda's
point,
which
is
very
well
taken
on
on
having
it
be
a
blank
check,
I
mean
what
this
is
essentially
is
giving
the
crb
I
use
the
term
outside
counsel
into
every
attorney
should
buy
by,
by
virtue
they're
being
a
member
of
the
Florida
barbie
independent,
and
have
loyalty
and
whatnot
to
their
client
or
clients.
P
But
outside
counsel
for
the
meetings
which
I
think
is,
it
should
be
pretty
narrowly
tailored
because
the
the
the
meetings
don't
run
too
darn
long.
The
the
research
issues,
if
any,
would
be
very,
very
limited.
The
going
Government
rate
I
mean
is
probably
I,
don't
want
to
say
a
number,
probably
two
hundred
dollars
for
something
like
this
205
210,
something
of
that
nature,
but
but
in
other
words,
I'm
fine
with
those
changes.
Thank.
F
You
and
that's
actually
a
really
good
point.
Is
that
we're
not
we're
not
hiring
a
full-time
attorney.
They
don't
need
a
full.
They
just
need
someone
when
they
need
someone.
So
yes,
yes,
thank
you
for
bringing
that
up.
I'm.
I
Q
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
agree
with,
what's
been
said,
specifically
councilman
Viera
and
the
maker
or
the
potential
motion.
That's
coming.
You
know
these
meetings
happen
once
a
month.
So
it's
not
a
huge
amount
of
money.
That's
being
billed
I,
don't
know
what
the
hourly
rate
would
be,
but
you
know
the
meetings
might
be
over
in
two
hours
might
be
an
hour,
I
don't
know,
but
this
would
provide
for
the
board
to
be
truly
independent.
Have
a
truly.
There
is
no
perception
of
a
bias.
There
is
no
perception
of
well.
Q
You
know
the
city
chose
this
attorney,
it
keeps
it
separate.
It
makes
it
independent
I,
don't
see
any
any
harm
in
this
I
think
you
know
it
helps
keep
the
board
as
it
is
intended
to
be,
and
that
is
independent
of
the
opinions
of
whomever
they
choose
you
they
retain
the
attorney
and
and
that's
it.
So
thank
you.
C
The
other
question-
and
it
is
not
defined
but
I'm-
I'm
curious
to
councilman
Miranda's
question,
whose
budget
is
this
coming
out
of.
C
Is
this
coming
out
of
City
council's
budget?
Is
it
coming
out
of
the
city
of
Campus
budget
and
I,
but
before
the
summit,
you're
gonna,
you're
gonna
get
up
and
answer
that,
but
I
would
like
an
opinion
from
the
legal
representative.
There
is
a
clause
that
we
have
and
it
states
that
the
crb
can
ask
for
an
outside
independent
attorney
for
a
conflict
of
interest.
C
R
Yeah,
just
to
clarify
Andrea,
zelman,
City
attorney
a
couple
of
things.
Let
me
address
one
of
the
more
minor
issues:
first
to
the
people
that
were
asking
why
the
words
for
the
Tampa
Police
Department
was
in
there
the
citizens
review
board
ordinance,
Section,
8
18-8
of
the
city
code.
The
title
is
citizen
review
board
for
the
Tampa
Police
Department,
so
that
language
was
just
put
in
to
mirror
the
way
the
current
code
reads:
there
was
nothing
intended
not
intended
to
mislead
anyone.
R
I
think
the
issue
we're
getting
at
is
in
the
city
of
Tampa.
The
only
entity
that
can
enter
into
contracts
is
the
city
of
Tampa.
The
city
council
can't
independently
contract
with
an
attorney,
nor
can
any
board,
including
the
citizens,
review
board,
so
I
think
what
what
Jennifer
and
and
Marty
and
I
discusses
with
her.
What
was
trying
to
be
accomplished
here
was
what
we
thought
was
council's
intent
was
simply
that
the
attorney
wouldn't
be
an
employee
of
the
city
of
Tampa,
so
they'd
have
that
level
of
Independence.
R
They
can't
truly
be
independent
of
the
city
of
Tampa,
because
the
city
of
Tampa
has
to
contract
with
them.
Pay
them
and
they
are
representing
a
board
of
the
city
of
Tampa.
Perhaps
you
know
a
suggestion
may
be.
If
what
city
council
is
trying
to
get
at
is
that
they
want
to
say
in
picking
the
attorney
rather
than
our
department,
picking
the
attorney
we
could,
you
know,
have
a
process
like
what
you
all
did
with
your
search
for
your
CRA
director,
where
the
body
itself,
and
in
this
case
I
guess
it
would
be.
R
The
crb
could
interview
the
attorneys
that
they're
selecting
but
again,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
still
going
to
be
a
contract
with
the
city
of
Tampa
and
I
thought
that
the
key
thing
the
council
was
trying
to
accomplish
was
that
it
not
be
an
employee
of
the
city
of
Tampa,
my
office,
the
police
department,
whatever,
and
then
one
final
comment
to
Jennifer's
Point.
R
This
real.
This
could
be
accomplished
by
amending
section
18-8
without
touching
the
charter,
which,
as
she
said,
would
be
a
lot
faster,
wouldn't
require
a
referendum,
wouldn't
require
a
rush
to
get
it
on
the
ballot
Just.
Just
as
an
aside
but
again,
I
I
think
that's
what
you're
trying
to
accomplish
and
then
and
then.
Finally,
as
to
the
other
ordinances
that
you
mentioned
from
Orange
County
and
Key,
West
Key
West,
it's
a
chart,
they
have
a
whole
Charter
provision
for
their
citizens
review
board.
We
don't.
R
If
you
look
at
some
of
those
other
ones
like
the
Orange
County
one.
It
basically
says
that
the
panel
can
select
the
attorney
with
the
funding
to
be
provided
by
the
County
Commission,
so
I
mean
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
still
as
as
it
would
be
here.
It's
still
the
City
attorney
who's,
hiring
or
or
paying
or
Contracting
with
the
attorney.
R
C
C
R
F
Meaning
thank
you,
full-time
meaning.
Whenever.
F
So
so
would
you
would
you
be
with?
Would
this
language
be
better?
The
crb
shall
retain
legal
counsel,
with
funding
to
be
provided
by
the
city,
who
is
not
a
city
employee
to
serve
as
a
legal
advisor
to
the
citizens
review
board.
So
if
we
added
that
language
just
to
clarify
yes
with
funding
to
be
provided
by
the
city.
F
R
A
F
C
Q
Going
to
suggest
if
it
if
this
is
not
to
work,
that
the
crb
nominate
an
attorney
of
their
choosing,
that's
not
a
City
attorney,
and
then
it
comes
to
city
council
for
final
approval
being
that
they're
Contracting
with
the
city
and
the
money's
coming
from
us.
So
there's
a
level
of
oversight,
I'm
I,
don't
know
if
that's
necessary
or
possible.
If
this
doesn't
fly
so
yeah,
that's.
C
P
Thank
you
very
much,
and,
and
you
know,
when
I
served
on
the
who
was
it
the
Civil
Service
review
board,
we
had
an
an
attorney
who
was
an
outside
attorney.
Ours
was
Delano,
Stewart
God
bless
him
who's
such
a
great
guy
and,
and
it
was
it,
wasn't
a
full-time
job.
P
He
probably
did
it
two
three
four
hours
a
month
and
that's
kind
of
what
I
I
think
a
reasonable
interpretation
of
this
is,
and
also
remember
again
under
and
I'll
leave
it
to
the
maker
of
the
motion
that
the
the
crb
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
do
this.
It's
if
they
choose
to
do
this
and
in
terms
of
the
conflict
issue,
there's
two
kinds
of
there's:
what
I
call
small
C
conflict
and
Big
C
conflict,
The
Big
C
conflict
is,
is
if
there
is
a
direct
conflict
of
interest.
P
That
goes
on
that
that
that
implicates
something
that
starts
a
legal,
an
ethical
process,
I
think
what
what's?
What?
What
the
larger
point
that
people
have
been
making
here
for
a
year
and
a
half
or
two
years
on
this
issue
is,
is
that
there
is
enough
that
for
a
board
like
this,
there
ought
to
be
an
outside
counsel.
Who's,
not
a
city,
employee
and
I.
Think
that's
a
very
reasonable
position
to
take
I've,
always
supported
that
Etc
et
cetera,
so
I.
P
To
answer
the
the
Chairman's
point:
the
citro
chairman
citro,
the
point
of
conflict
that
this
is
not
what
this
is
addressing.
This
is
addressing
the
appearance
of
non-independence
and
for
a
board
like
this
appearance
is
something
that's
very
relevant.
So
that's
why
I
support
this.
C
F
Thank
you,
I
apologize,
so
I
that
will
I
will
make
an
emotion
to
change
the
language
and
I
have
it
for
for
you
to,
for
the
underlying
to
be.
The
crb
shall
select
legal
counsel,
with
funding
to
be
provided
by
the
city,
who
is
not
a
city
employee
to
serve
as
the
legal
advisor
to
the
citizens
review
board.
C
T
Logistically
Council
I
just
want
to
be
clear
on
how
this
is
handled,
so
we
can
put
it
within
the
time
frame,
that's
necessary
to
get
the
supervisor
of
elections
and
I
spoke
with
the
clerk
this
morning.
We
also
have
an
issue
of
publication
for
second
reading
and
the
date
for
publication.
The
way
the
publication's
work
is
December
21st.
Is
that
correct?
That
would
be
the
soonest
that
it
could
be
advertised.
T
U
U
January
5th,
because
shortly
thereafter,
I
believe
it's
the
the
cutoff
time
it
has
to
be
if
they
supervise
reluctance.
I
Believe
by
the
20th
I'll
double
check.
I
C
T
Going
to
put
on
your
life
just
just
one
more
clarification,
then
and
I
I
guess
that
would
go
to
you
Ms
Cowan.
If
these
changes
are
made
today
to
this
or
any
of
the
other
ordinances,
when
would
it
then
be
approved
by
Council
for
first
reading
consideration.
F
V
Girls,
thank
you.
If
we
do
that,
then,
because
there's
been
what
I
consider
a
lot
of
misinterpretation
of
the
charter,
I
think
we
should
clarify
somewhere
that
that
it
that
this
this
attorney
would
work
with
the
crb,
not
with
the
police
department.
V
I
I,
don't
understand
I,
just
don't
understand
you
have
a
legal
department
that
is
here
right
now.
You
have
a
legal
department
upstairs
right
now.
How
many
times
have
we
been
here
and
they've
made
a
change
and
brought
the
owners
right
back
down
the
same
day
and
we
make
the
corrections
the
same
time?
I
How
many
times
we've
done
that
so
I
don't
understand
this
time
frame,
because,
if
she's
making
the
changes
now
by
the
time
we
get
down
to
a
part
of
the
last
Charter
Charter
number
23
or
whatever
they
could
have
that
back
to
us
with
that
change.
Show
me
that.
T
Are
across
the
street,
they
are
across
the
street.
I
just
want
to
find
and
I
don't
I'm,
not
disagreeing
or
disputing
what
you're
saying
I'm
just
saying
that
the
logistics
I
just
want
to
be
clear
on
it.
The
clerk
also
had
another
very
interesting
way
that
we
may
be
able
to
handle.
That
is
if
they
read
the
title,
and
we've
done
this
very
recently
if
they
read
the
title
as
corrected
and
the
changes
could
be
made
between
first
and
second
reading
to
comport.
It
is
that
correct.
N
An
ordinance
and
you
go
ahead
and
you
publish
to
the
agenda
to
the
public
and
it's
a
first
reading
and
you
change
that
ordinance.
So
long
as
the
changes
you
make
are
not
significant
enough
to
change
the
title
block,
you
don't
have
a
problem
moving
forward
when
you
change
the
title
block
is
normally
when
you
have
to
come
back
and
kind
of
Start
Anew,
where
you
have
your
your
first
reading
again
and
then
and
then
your
second
reading.
P
Vieira,
thank
you
very
much,
sir.
Just
really
quickly
I
mean
I
say
we
go
with
advice
of
counsel.
We
either
change
something
that
changes
the
title
which,
if
I,
unless,
if
I,
misunderstood,
councilwoman
hurt
she
she
wished
to
go
as
we
have
it
now
or
we
change
it
and
we
wait
another
week.
I
mean
let's
it's.
We
have
land
use
hearings
in
two
and
a
half
hours,
so
I,
just
I
suggested
we
go
and
I
defer
to
the
advice
on
Council
on
on
the
choices
that
we
have.
F
F
Attack,
if
this
is
part
of
the
title
block,
then
then
that
is,
that
is.
F
The
problem
is
several
of
these:
ordinates
have
stuff
in
the
title
block
that
shouldn't
be
there
I
mean
that
that's
quite
honestly,
as
I'm
looking
through
these
and
as
we're
going
to
be
discussing
them.
There
are
quite
a
few
other
things
that
shouldn't
be
in
the
title
block,
so
we're
going
to
have
to
make
some
changes
anyway,
so
that
the
issue
is.
T
Shoving
if
I
could
finish
that
sentence
and
not
to
interrupt,
but
the
issue
is:
can
these
changes
be
made
and
done
in
a
formal
fashion
that
comports
with
the
Florida
law
that
requires
how
this
is
going
to
be
passed
and
adopted?
If,
if
that's
council's
pleasure
on
second
reading
and
make
publication,
so
why
don't
we
proceed
and
then
we
can
see
how
things
can
work?
Logistically
you
you
mentioned
next
week's
meeting
the
next
week
is
a
CRA
meeting.
T
V
Yeah,
considering
how
these
dates
have
been
pushed
and
pushed
and
pushed
and
pushed
I
wouldn't
I
would
prefer
not
to
push
it
again.
I
don't
want
to
put
language
that
might
be
misleading
or
confusing
in
there,
but
considering
that
the
charter
was
changed
substantially
with
two
paragraphs
in
a
2018
Memo
by
a
City
attorney,
I
would
request.
V
Have
you
made
a
motion
on
this
right?
Maybe
I
would
ask
for
you
to
amend
your
motion
to
add
that
you
would
request
if
you,
if
you
include
the
title
block
the
way
it
is
that
you
would
add
to
it
a
request
that
the
city,
the
current
City
attorney,
write
us
a
memo
for
the
file.
That
would
say
that
her
interpretation
is
that
this.
This
attorney
works
for
the
crb,
not
for
the
police
department,
because
some
future
City
attorney
May
misread
that
the
way
others
have.
R
If
I
may,
the
name
of
the
board
is
the
citizen
review
board
for
the
Tampa
Police
Department
for
the
Tampa
Police
Department
modifies
citizen
review
board,
it
doesn't
modify
who
the
attorney
works
for
the
attorney
works
for
the
citizen
review
board
for
the
Tampa
Police
Department.
That's
the
name
of
the
board
so.
V
Just
think
that's
the
name
of
the
board.
I
just
think
it'll
be
helpful
to
put
that
in
writing
so
that
we
could
refer.
Somebody
in
the
future
could
refer
to
it.
You
know
we
have
so
many
what
I
would
call
misinterpretations
like
the
line
that
says
something
like
the
the
City
attorney
is
the
final
word
on
legal
opinions
and
that's
been
misconstrued
to
pretend
to
imply
that
the
City
attorney
is
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
city
and
and
makes
judgments
and
rulings,
and
and
it's
it
they're,
just
legal
advisors.
V
There's
there's
emphasis
there
on
Final
opinion
versus
legal
advice,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
nobody
in
the
future
misconstrues
this,
because
a
lot
of
power
has
been
taken
away
from
city
council,
it's
not
about
taking
power
away
from
the
administration
about
taking
away
power
from
restoring
powers
of
city
council
and
making
sure
that
nobody
takes
Powers
away
in
the
future.
Thank
you,
councilman.
C
I
I
I
I
need
you
to
be
the
coach
to
do
your
job
to
tell
us
what
you
believe
is
her
attack
or
the
right
directive
to
move
for
this
lady
to
know
what
she
needs
to
do
for
this
Council
that
we
need
to
do
that's
what
I'm.
Looking
for
I'm.
Looking
for
your
leadership
to
say,
counsel,
it
is
my
in
my
opinion.
This
is
the
route
we
should
go
to
get
what
you
want
accomplished
to
get
it
on
the
ballot,
whatever
needs
to
be
removed
to
get
the
job
done.
I
need
you
to
be
the
coach.
T
Yes,
sir,
with
regard
to
what
Ms
Zellman
said,
with
the
name
of
a
title
being
in
there,
as
for
the
Tampa
Police
Department,
that
is
something
that
I
actually
brought
up
because
of
the
fact
that
is
the
title
within
the
state.
Excuse
me
within
the
city
code,
there
is,
as
was
stated
by
the
City
attorney,
the
other
jurisdictions
that
were
cited,
Miami
Key
West,
those
are
perhaps
a
different
form
of
government
than
we
have
in
the
city
of
Tampa
that
is
operating
under
a
different
Charter.
Our
Charter
has
nothing
anywhere
in
it.
T
Now
that
uses
the
word
civilian
review
board
crb
and
that
comes
from
how
this
board
was
created
and
rather
than,
and
if
we
had
maybe
the
more
more
of
the
luxury
of
time
to
be
able
to
do
this.
If
it
were
counsel's,
pleasure
and
and
the
process
went
through
and
it
was
vetted
properly,
maybe
something
like
what
you
want
to
have
that
have
been
cited
by
members
of
the
public
relating
to
a
civilian
review
board.
Maybe
the
next
Charter
review,
commission
or,
however,
Council
wants
to
do
it,
but.
T
Now
now
I
have
different
variables
that
I
am
concerned
with
you
can,
if
you
want
to,
if
you
want
to
change
it,
if
you
feel
strongly
that
you
don't
want
that
in
there,
if
you
don't
want
what
you
don't
want
to
have,
is
you
don't
want
to
have
any
misperceptions
or
miscommunications
by
the
public?
You
don't
want
anything
misleading
on
your
chart
or
Ballot
or
The.
Ballot
summary.
That
is
the
most
important
thing,
you're
also
limited,
and
just
by
way
of
background
the
number
of
words
these
things
can
happen.
T
So
that
all
being
said,
my
main
concern
is
there
is
one
publication
in
the
city
that
does
legal
advertising
that
this
city
retains
it
publishes
one
day
a
week,
we're
in
a
holiday
season
and
that's
why
I'm
concerned
that
this
has
to
be
such
that
if
you're
going
through
these
efforts-
and
you
want
to
make
it
on
the
ballot,
we
have
to
make
sure
that
it
it
it.
We
follow
that
time
and
my
suggestion
is
my
recommendation
is
State.
T
What
it
is,
you
think,
is
necessary,
and
then
we
have
to
figure
out
how
we're
going
to
handle
the
time
frame
to
be
able
to
get
it
back
to
you.
So
so
my
suggestion
would
be
if
that
language,
if
you
feel
it's
misleading
and
if
this
element
would
agree
with
that
I
I
say
then,
even
though
I
I
believe
it
is
in
this
section,
because
there's
no
other
section
where
it
could
fit
into
it
fits
into
that
department.
T
So
my
suggestion
is,
as
a
council
with
your
leadership,
you
tell
us
where
you
want
it
to
go
and
if
it
means
us
having
to
work
with
Brian,
Miller
and
Olive,
to
get
it
to
you
in
a
timely
fashion.
If
it
means
changing
the
council's
schedule
to
be
able
to
get
it
into
a
timely
fashion,
we
will
do
what
it
takes
in
order
to
be
able
to
comply
with
Florida
law
to
get
this
on
the
ballot
in
a
timely
fashion.
C
V
V
A
T
T
We
could
I
have
not
talked
with
Council
about
it.
We
may
even
be
able
to
have
a
first
reading
this
evening.
If
such
a
thing
were
possible,
I,
don't
know
okay
or
or
or
we
could
have
it
next
week,
but
I
have
not.
We
have
not
gotten
to
that
point.
Okay
and
we
don't
know
what's
ahead
of
us
in
terms
of
what.
N
The
next
ordinance
before
you
is
amending
section,
2.02
qualifications
and
it's
addressing
the
term
limits
of
the
city
council
members.
City
council's
motion
was
very
clear
on
this
to
delete
the
end
of
the
section,
thereby
limiting
all
members
of
the
city
council
to
serve
two
consecutive
full
terms,
eliminating
the
ability
to
immediately
run
and
serve
as
a
council
member
for
a
different
District
I
believe
it
was
referred
to
as
District
hopping,
and
this
this
proposed
language
removes
that.
Q
So
I
was
thinking
about
this
and
I
think
it
was
maybe
10
years
ago
or
so.
The
council
made
a
motion.
If
people
resigned
from
Council
to
run
for
other
seats
they
and
if
they
lost,
they
couldn't
come
and
jump.
You
know
if
it
was
a
November
election.
They
were
running
for
they
couldn't
lose
and
then
come
back
for
the
March
election.
They
would
have
to
sit
out
four
years
and
I
think
this.
This
goes
with
that.
You
know
along
along
the
lines
of
that
of
you
know.
We
have
term
limits.
Q
O
O
I
think
that
was
intended.
Let's
say
that
you
have
a
an
opportunity
to
jump
ship
or
go
somewhere
else.
Wherever
you,
your
mind,
may
take
you.
Your
body
wants
to
go
run
for
another
office
outside
the
city
of
Tampa.
You
want
to
run
for
a
charge,
you'll
run
for
State
Attorney.
You
want
to
run
for
a
County
Commission.
O
You
want
to
run
for
whatever
that,
if
you
leave
before
your
term
is
ending
in
the
city,
that's
what
it
means
that
you
have
to
wait
out
four
years
before
you
can
run
that's
what
that
that
means
yeah
this
section
here.
This
is
a
little
different
and
I'm,
not
talking
about
myself,
I'm
saying
that
if
you
do,
this
you'll
have
very
few
individuals
that
understand
what
happened
10
years.
O
Hence
past
the
time
where
you're,
talking
of
something
and
you
leave
like
a
library,
is
empty
you're,
going
to
look
for
something
you're
not
going
to
find
it.
So,
there's
a
in
fact:
there's
a
there's,
a
a
thing
that
I
really
believe
in
and
admire
that
every
four
years
you
may
want
to
run,
but
you
may
not
get
elected
that
the
public
has
that
right
to
do
that
and
the
public
does
it
on
a
well-mannered
situation,
so
I'm
not
going
to
vote
for
this.
It's
just
the
public
has
a
right
to
vote.
V
Yeah
I
know
that
there
was
some
discussion
a
couple
months
ago
about
ideas
that
have
been
suggested
during
the
the
charter
view
commission
and
were
rejected
and
I
did
not
propose
this
one.
But
during
the
just
for
a
disclosure
during
the
charter
review,
commission
I
recommended
for
no
more
than
four
consecutive
terms,
so
that
would
allow
someone
to
be
in
a
district
and
then
roll
to
rolled
to
a
city-wide
I'm.
V
Fine
with
this
one
but
I
I
would
like
one
either
either
the
four
terms
or
two
terms,
because
I
like
to
see
turnover
of
people.
F
Q
W
O
T
Shelby
just
a
reminder
Council
and
for
whatever
weight.
This
has
I
make
no
comment,
but
just
a
reminder
that
Tampa
is
unique
in
one
great
sense.
It
does
not
have
staggered
terms,
I'm,
not
familiar
frankly
with
another
jurisdiction
in
this
state.
That
does
not
have
staggered
terms.
Everybody
is
on
the
ballot
every
four
years.
What
the
what
the
Practical
effect
might
have
in
terms
of
institutional
memory
or
things
down
the
road
I
can't
say
it
I'm
not
going
to
speculate,
but
just
so
you
know
that
it's,
unlike
any
other
jurisdiction
that
I'm
familiar
with.
O
Councilman
Miranda
I
just
thought
of
this
when
I
heard
the
word
this.
All
of
this
does
not
come
from
a
charter
review
Commission
we
some
years
back
and
in
fact
put
the
the
individuals
in
the
charter
review.
Commission
I
know
there
was
over
10
of
them.
I
forgot
how
it
was
I
know
the
mayor
had
so
many
the
counselor
had
so
many
then
whatever,
and
they
brought
their
recommendations
to
us
in.
O
Bringing
the
recommendation
to
ourselves
am
I
correct,
so
that's
flawed
in
itself.
That's
not
transparency!
That's
not
coming
from
somebody
other
than
us
not
coming
from
a
group
of
people
that
we
appointed
to
do
a
responsible
and
they
did
a
fantastic
job.
In
fact,
four
of
them
are
here
three
here
and
one
there
if
I
could
count
to
four
and
and
those
are
the
things
that
I
see
so
that
commission
is
not
involved
in
this.
We
set
the
Commission
in
order
to
have
transparency
and
Clarity
to
it.
O
I
Know
I
respect
what
Mr
Rana
is
just
stated,
but
when
that
commission
was
put
in
order,
no
city
council
members
were
on
that
commission,
so
they
don't
understand
what
we
went
through
and
the
information
that
we
was
given
and
were
not
given
now
sitting
as
a
city
council,
member
I
can
see
some
of
the
flaws
in
that
process
and
there
are
a
few
and
now
sitting
as
the
actual
board
member,
seeing
some
of
the
things
that
they
we
didn't
get
a
chance
to
really
review
all
of
the
charter.
I
I
It
does
have
some
vagueness
to
it,
and
interpretations
to
one
so
I
think
being
clear
on
some
of
the
issues
makes
it
better.
So
people
have
a
clear
understanding
of
what
it
means
versus
a
broad
perspective.
I
can
look
at
a
police
SOP.
Some
things
are
clear-cut,
some
things
it's
led
to
interpretation
or
how
one
who
the
writer
who's
who's,
giving
discipline
or
whatever
rights
about
anybody
can
be
disciplined
depends
on
who
the
writer
is
or
how
they
perceive
the
perception
of
it.
I
There's
no
difference
some
of
the
stuff.
That's
in
this
chart
so
again,
I
sat
on
that
board.
Several
members
here,
Ms
zelman,
said
on
that
board
and
like
I
can,
like
I
I,
still
contend
that
some
of
the
stuff
in
our
Charter
we
missed
and
had
we
known
what
we
know
now,
things
might
have
would
have
been
different,
and
maybe
we
had
some
of
the
concerns
from
the
previous
Council
to
tell
us
what
they
thought
we
might
have
could
address
some
of
those
issues.
I
don't
know,
but
I
think
we
missed
a
few
things.
I
F
So
if,
if
we
wanted
to
follow
what
councilmember
Carlson
said,
we
could
simply
take
away
the
lines
that
are
gone
through
in
this
language
up
at
the
top.
If
what
you're
looking
at
and
just
add
to
not
exceed
a
total
of
16
years
or
four
full
terms.
F
E
N
N
F
Council,
member
Carlson
does
that
work
for
you.
Do
you
like
that
Amendment?
If
not
I,
can
take
it
out?
I'm
I'm,
just
fine
with
four
terms
for
the
institutional
memory
like
councilman
Miranda,
the.
V
The
councilman
Carlson
yeah,
the
only
thing
is
there-
are
situations
like
Lewis
face
where
he
filled
two
years
of
an
existing
term,
and
so,
if,
if,
if
he
got
elected.
F
P
Yes,
and-
and
you
know
the
reason
I
voted
for
this-
the
first
time
is
it.
It
makes
this
consistent
with
what
applies
to
the
mayor
and
I.
Think
that's
good
I
think
to
cap
it
at
16
years
would
be
misguided.
It
wouldn't
be
a
poison
pill
for
me,
but
I
respectfully
think
that
would
be
misguided.
There
is
something
for
institutional
knowledge
and
I
think
when
you
allow
someone
to
have
a
four-year
break
like
we
do
as
mayor
you
open
the
field
which
is
which
is
I,
I,
think
the
whole
idea
of
term
limits.
P
You
know
there,
there's
always
Arguments
for
and
against
term
limits
and
whatnot.
A
lot
of
people
argue
for
it
in
Congress,
but
for
34
years
from
63
to
97,
we
were
represented
in
Tampa
by
Sam
Gibbons,
one
of
the
greatest
members
of
Congress
around
who
did
such
great
work
for
Tampa.
So
there's
always
good,
and
you
know
things
on
both
sides.
P
Q
I
was
thinking
back
over
the
last
60
70
years
and
how
many
council
members
served
more
than
the
two
or
three
terms
and
I
can
only
think
of
four
saucena
Miranda
Copeland
and
Duncan
and
Copeland
and
Duncan
haven't
been
in
office
since
I.
Don't
know
the
70s,
whatever
you
know
what
I'm
saying,
but
it's
it's.
The
chances
are
slim
that
these
you
know
what
I'm
saying
again.
Elections
have
consequences,
and
we've
had
many
council
members
over
that
time.
Period
in
a
very
small
group.
O
Thank
you
very
much
chairman
when
you
look
at
the
lectures
look
at
the
Congress
and
the
president,
the
president,
only
certain
two
terms
period,
because
I
understand
you
can
serve
four
or
lose
I
guess
you
could
come
back,
but
the
house,
the
Senate
and
there's
where
that
knowledge
stays,
whether
you
like
them
or
not,
whether
you
like
Pelosi
or
not,
whether
you
like
the
gentleman
from
Kentucky
or
not
they're
there,
and
would
you
like
the
new
speaker
coming
up
now.
That's
another
question:
you
like
whoever's
going
to
be
president
of
the
Senate.
O
V
Yeah,
just
just
to
comment
on
that,
the
charter
review
commission
created
the
charter
review
commission
to
come
back
so
that
the
process
before
that
was
that
city
council
would
modify
in
the
last
city
council,
which
several
of
you
served
on
created
the
charter
review
commission.
V
So
it's
it's
we're
actually
following
the
original
rules,
not
the
ones
that
were
created
by
the
charter
review
commission
and
we
happen
to
have
unique
expertise
and
I
won't
revisit
all
the
things
that
I
had
proposed,
but
the
the
intent
of
what
what
I
was
taking
a
minute
ago
about
the
four
consecutive
terms
is,
is
if
we,
if
you,
if
you
change
this
and
just
take
out
two
input,
four,
then
all
it
would
say
is
that,
after
four
consecutive
terms,
you
have
to
sit
out
for
four
years,
so
it
doesn't
I
think
if
we
The
Proposal
I
had
several
years
ago.
V
The
charter
review
commission
was
four
terms
total
ever
but
the.
But
if
we
were
going
to
modify
this,
what
I
would
put
is
that
it
would
be
four
consecutive
foliar
terms
and
there
all
the
rest
of
this
would
be
the
same.
So
after
four
consecutive
terms,
they
would
have
to
sit
out
for
four
years
before
they
could
run
again.
But
if
you
all
want
to
instead
I.
F
F
V
C
F
I'm
I'm
fine,
with
keeping
it
together.
So
it's
really
the
pleasure
of
my
colleagues
I
agree
with
councilman
Carlson
I'm
fine,
with
either.
C
C
Or
questions
I
and
I
I
I
just
have
to
make
this
statement
and
and
I
mean
to
offend
no
one,
especially
our
outside
independent
attorney.
That
is
here
with
us.
There's
four
members
on
this
Council
to
served
in
the
charter
review,
especially
with
our
our
City
attorney
that
served
on
the
charter
review
13
months
13
months.
C
We
spent
deliberating
on
the
changes
that
the
charter
review
commission
put
together,
as
we've
already
seen
here,
we're
making
changes
now
as
we're
going
I've
feeling
that
this
also
might
be
rushed
and
again
I
mean
nothing
to
no
offense
to
anybody,
especially
our
outside
independent
counts
that
we
have.
Now
we
have
the
mayor.
We
have
city
council,
that's
all
elected
at
the
same
time,
I've
heard
many
times,
wouldn't
it
be
great
to
have
a
new
mayor
and
all
new
city
council.
We
can
start
afresh.
C
F
I
will
I
will
I
will.
My
motion
will
be
to
strike
the
strikes
and
add
to
not
exceed
a
total
of
four
full
consecutive
terms,
and
then
the
language
at
the
bottom
would
just
change,
served
four
consecutive
full
terms
to
two
consecutive
full
terms
to
four
consecutive
full
terms:
okay,.
E
C
C
N
The
next
item
before
you
is
an
ordinance
addressing
section
9.01-
and
this
is
the
creation
of
standing
boards.
H
M
Well,
I
did
that.
Similarly,
for
you.
N
And
basically,
the
only
change
in
this
ordinance
was
clarifying
that
the
standing
board
will
be
created
by
city
council
by
ordinance
without
the
mayor's
recommendation.
Q
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
think
this
goes
back
to
the
summer
of
2015.
When
the
issue
of
creating
this,
the
citizens
review
board
that
we've
discussed
earlier
today,
and
there
was
discussion
back
and
forth
between
the
City
attorney,
the
city
council
attorney
the
city
council
and
the
mayor
regarding
who
has
the
authority
to
create
boards
and
the
opinions
that
we
got
from
what
I
remember
now
seven
and
a
half
years
ago
was
that
one
of
the
opinion
was
that
the
city
council
had
the
authority
to
create
the
board.
Q
The
mayor
at
the
time
disagreed
with
that
her,
the
response
from
the
city
attorney
that
only
the
mayor
had
the
authority
to
create
the
board
it.
It
became
a
heated
discussion.
I
think
we
came
to
a
stalemate
and
the
board
was
created,
but
it
came
down
to
the
mayor
and
the
city
council
as
to
how
many
appointees
to
that
board
they
would
have
in
order
to
keep
it
balanced.
We
came
to
an
agreement.
We've
amended
that
since
and
now
we're
talking
about
the
crb
in
regards
to
Independent
attorney
now.
Q
So
this
is
a
a
seven
and
a
half
year
discussion,
but
from
what
I
remember
there
were
differing
opinions.
One
attorney
said
that
we
had
the
authority.
The
City
attorney
said
that
no
and
that
the
only
the
mayor
could
create
the
board.
So
I'll
wait
to
hear
what
other
council
members
have
to
say
about
this,
but
that's
what
I,
remember
and
and
my
understanding
so.
I
T
The
full
answer
is
under
the
home
rule
Authority,
you
and
your
legislative
ability
have
the
right
to
create
an
ordinance.
The
question
is:
what
is
the
mayor's
remedy
if
she
does
not
like
that
ordinance?
The
answer
is
in
the
charter,
and
that
is
the
veto
and
there's
a
process
for
a
veto
and
there's
a
process
for
in
the
exercise
of
its
legislative
Authority.
If
it
disagrees
with
the
mayor's
veto,
city
council
can
override
it.
There's
been
a
question
of
interpretation
as
to
what
this
Charter
excuse
me.
What
this,
what
this
provision
in
the
charter
does?
T
But
even
after
that
case,
the
mayor
still
has
the
right
to
veto
it,
but
or
does
it
mean
that,
for
instance,
this
is
under
a
section
of?
Was
it
9.01?
Is
that
this
section?
Yes,
that's
under
the
section
of
boards,
it
does
not
say
city
council
boards,
it
does
not
say
mayoral
boards,
but
the
question
is:
does
that
apply
equally
to
the
mayor
and
to
the
city
council?
And
there
was
questioned
as
to
whether
it
did,
and
there
was
a
question-
and
this
was
raised
in
I-
believe
2018.
T
I
T
I
If
I
want
to
put
something
to
the
voters,
yes,
the
voters
know
what
they're
checking
yes
or
no
to
saying
this.
Council
has
the
authority
to
make
any
more.
They
want
In
the
City
by
ordinance,
that's
what
I'm
asking
so
I
wouldn't
care.
If
the
mayor
disagree
with
my
board
or
not
if
this
counts
that
they
want
to
enact
some
type
of
board
and
we
passed
it,
she
could
he
or
she
could
veto
all
day
long.
But
this
this
boy
comes
back
with
a
five
vote.
Count
that
board
passes
correct.
T
I
Don't
need
to
pause
it
to
the
City
attorney
right
now,
I
need
to
know
if
I,
if
I,
if
this
poor
right
now
has
this
young
lady
right
here
to
write
our
our
Charter
orders
to
put
on
the
ballot.
Is
it
standing?
So
if
you
can't
answer
ma'am
I'm
going
to
ask
you
that
question
if
this
board
is
asking
you
to
write,
you
know
right
in
the
charter
for
the
voters
that
this
Council
has
the
right
to
enact
any
board.
We
want,
as
until
orders
and
the
voters
voted.
That
would
that
be
the
standing
interpretation.
N
As
the
language
has
changed,
it
would
be
that,
yes,
that
the
board
could
be
created
by
ordinance.
Q
I
think
I
can
clarify
I
hope
I
can
clarify
so
my
opinion.
This
is
no
attorney's
opinion
for
when
I've
understood
from
being
here
in
2015.
When
this
discussion
came
up,
the
city
council
has
the
authority
to
create
the
board.
The
mayor
has
the
authority
to
veto
that,
with
a
five
vote
super
majority
the
city
council
can
override
The
veto.
What
happened
in
that
situation
was
the
last
Administration
never
used
the
veto
power
in
the
situation.
With
this
board,
an
agreement
was
was
made.
The
mayor
proposed,
whoever
appoints
what
and
we
settled
it.
Why?
Q
Because
I
spoke
to
the
mayor,
I
know
sometimes
I
waste,
my
time
in
mediating,
but
I
wanted
to
bring
it
to
a
close.
I
spoke
to
the
mayor.
I.
Remember
he
called
me
what
about?
If
you
know
you
appoint
this
many
and
then
what
about
that?
You
think
I
said
I'm.
Sure
council
could
go
with
that
and
we
settled
it.
It
never
got
to
that
veto
overriding
The
veto
anyways.
So
we
don't.
We
don't
know
what
would
have
happened
because
it
never
got
there.
Q
We
reached
the
settlement,
but
the
point
I'm
trying
to
make
is
I.
Don't
think
this
is
necessary
because,
from
speaking
with
a
variety
Attorneys
at
the
time,
Mr
Shelby,
the
City
attorney
that
was
there
at
the
time
city
council
has
the
attorney
the
the
authority
to
create
the
board.
So
we
don't
need
to
do
this.
I
You're
saying
it's
not
necessary
because
you
never
exercise
your
power
because
you
felt
what
I've
listened
on
that
order,
because
I
was
here
that
whole
time
when
it
all
went
on
that
this
board,
an
interpretation
of
Miss
Mandel
was
the
mayor
had
all
the
power
to
do
whatever.
That's
where
I
interpret
for
Miss
Mandel
at
that
Podium.
So
you
might
have
made
a
back
deal
deal
with
the
previous
mayor,
but
miss
Mandel.
At
that
point
said
the
mayor
had
the
authority
and
this
council
did
not
am
I
right,
Mr
Shelby.
I
V
Yeah,
that's
the
way,
I.
Remember
too
Ms
Mandel
said
that
that
and
I
was
an
activist
talking
about
that
that
only
the
mayor
had
the
right
to
to,
in
whatever
way,
create
or
approve
the
creation
of
committees,
and
then
they
hired
an
outside
attorney,
Gwen
young
who's,
a
great
person
but
attorneys.
This
is
why
I
had
the
whole
discussion
in
the
charter
about
attorneys.
If
you
hire
an
attorney,
the
attorney
works
for
you
and
and
technically
the
City
attorney
works
for
city
council
and
the
mayor.
V
It's
described
in
that
detail
in
the
charter,
but
in
reality,
especially
at
that
time,
the
attorneys
didn't
and
and
I
don't
think
they
did
anything
wrong.
I
think
they
were
told
to
do
certain
things.
So
Marty's
opinion
at
the
time
was
that
that
it
was
our
power
and
we
could
do
it
and
their
opinion.
Wasn't
they
hired
an
outside
attorney
as
if
that
again
was
the
Supreme
Court?
It's
not
where
that's
the
kind
of
situation.
V
V
O
Trying
to
think
it
out
how
many
other
times,
maybe
some
other
place
that
I
remember
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
that
we're
looking
here
to
change
the
power
of
what
we
have
in
the
mayor's
office,
I'm,
not
saying
that
we're
right
or
wrong.
I
understand
both
sides.
But
if
you
want
a
strong
mayor
of
government,
where
one
person
is
responsible
for
the
administrative
stuff
and
seven
or
men,
individuals
for
the
legislative
stuff,
then
you
have
to
have
makes
you
work
together
and
in
the
future.
O
It
may
be
something
that
the
Council
of
the
Mayors
can't
work
out
together,
cannot
work
out
together
and
the
council
may
want
to
create
all
kind
of
boards
without
the
mayor's
permission
or
a
blessing
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
it,
but
that
mayor
still
has
veto
power
and
it's
only
been
used
and
I.
Remember
and
you
can
check
history
one
time
and
it
was
in
1974..
O
O
Arthur
larandi
was
the
vice
president
and
I
can
tell
you
what
happened.
It
was
in
the
office
where
the
clerkside
it
used
to
be
the
mayor's
office.
Nobody
remembers
that
in
fact,
I
hate
to
tell
you
this.
It
was
a
no
falling
back
here.
There
was
no
offices
for
council
members.
It
was
a
slot
like
you
like,
a
pigeon
comes
in.
That's
where
you
got
your
mail
and
there
was
one
phone
that
was
different
times
I'm,
not
sure
we
should
go
about
that
I.
O
Don't
let
me
clarify
all
that,
but
only
one
time
that
I
can
remember
was
the
council
ever
overriding
the
mayor,
and
maybe
there
was
another
time
on
the
budget,
but
I
think
it
was
settled.
I'm
not
sure.
Thank
you
very
much,
but
I'm
not
going
to
support
anything
that
leaves
a
mayor
out
because
it
it
starts
to
wither
away
and
starts
with
two
different
bodies,
not
communicating
with
each
other
and
I.
Don't
want
the
puppet
to
go
through.
That
is
showing.
T
T
There
was
a
period
of
time
when
there
was
a
great
deal
of
discussion
between
Council
and
the
City
attorney
in
which
I
was
involved.
Does
the
mayor
have
the
ability
to
remove
that
home
rule
power
onto
this
Charter
by
preempting
counsel,
by
creating
an
executive
order
doing
something
before
Council
has
the
opportunity
to
act,
which
was
the
process
in
2015
before
Council
had
an
opportunity
to
act,
an
executive
order
was
created
and
therefore
the
argument
was
made
that
Council
lost
its
legislative
home
rule
Authority.
T
The
section
that
I
relied
upon
in
2015
was
changed
by
the
charter
view
commission
this
section
in
section
9.01
was
boards
and
the
question
ultimately
became,
but
for
the
lack
of
a
comma
or
for
the
lack
of
a
period
and
a
capital
starting
a
next
sentence.
It
was
subject
to
two
different
interpretations
and
that's
why?
T
For
no
other
reason,
because
of
the
fact
that
it
was
subject
to
interpretation,
in
my
opinion
that
that
interpretation
or
one
of
them
could
have
been
used
to
infringe
upon
what
I
viewed
as
council's
rightful
home
rule
Authority
by
an
interpretation
of
the
charter.
It's
a
clarification.
You
heard
what
the
clarification
is
a
plain
reading
by
an
independent
attorney
that
counsel
it
doesn't
take
anything
away
from
the
mayor,
but
it
restores
to
city
council
what
under
home
rule
Authority
every
legislative
body
within
this
state
has
the
ability
to
do.
F
Thank
you
for
succinctly,
saying
exactly
what
I
was
going
to
say
that
that's
the
whole
point
of
this
this
just
this
takes
no
power
away
from
the
mayor.
None
because
the
mayor
still
has
the
ability
to
veto
it
and,
as
councilman
Miranda
has
shared
with
us
very
few
overriding
vetoes
or
overriding
votes
have
occurred.
F
So
this
really
is
about
clarification.
That's
why
I
made
this
motion
and
I
am
presenting
it
as
it
stands
right
now
for
approval.
O
E
F
Let
me
read
the
title
of
the
ordinance:
apologies,
an
ordinance
relating
to
the
government
of
the
city
of
Tampa
Florida,
submitting
to
the
electors
of
the
city,
a
proposed
amendment
to
the
revised
Charter
of
the
city
of
Tampa
of
1975,
as
amended
to
amend
section
9.01,
to
clarify
that
standing
boards
shall
be
created
by
city
council
by
ordinance
without
requiring
the
mayor's
recommendation
providing
an
effective
date.
B
Q
Q
I've
sat
through
this
discussion
from
2015
on
and
and
and
I
appreciate,
Mr
Shelby's
comments
from
2015,
because
I
agree
with
what
he
said
at
the
time.
We
avoided
a
fight.
We
worked
it
out
to
a
certain
degree,
but
this
does
not
Merit
a
veto
and
having
to
go
there.
It
doesn't
hurt
anybody,
but
that's
just
my
opinion.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you
agenda
item
number
22.
N
Yes
before
you
now
is
an
ordinance
revising
section,
6.03
appointments,
and
this
is
addressing
the
appointments
of
City
department
heads.
This
is
clarifying
that
the
mayor
will
nominate
the
department,
heads
and
Council
will
appoint
or
disapprove
the
nomination.
If
disproved,
then
the
mayor
will
submit
another
nominee.
The
mayor
May
appoint
an
existing
City
employee
to
serve
as
an
interim
appointment
for
a
period
of
not
more
than
180
days.
Q
This
is
another
one
that
I
had
thought
about
these
last
few
days
and
looked
at
and
and
read
the
language
here.
So
from
my
understanding,
the
mayor
can
only
appoint
to
a
vacancy
for
a
city
position.
An
existing
City
employee
is
that
correct.
The
mayor
has
to
choose
from
the
existing
active
city,
employees
yeah.
N
Q
So
my
question
is
this:
we
have
Chief
of
Staff
John
Bennett
in
the
room.
John
Bennett
was
employed
by
the
city
retired
and
went
to
another
jurisdiction
to
to
work.
Therefore,
the
mayor
having
come
into
office
would
not
had
the
would
not
have
been
given
the
opportunity
to
appoint
John
Bennett
as
interim
Chief
of
Staff,
because
he
wasn't
an
active
City
employee
because
he
had
retired
and
then
that's
the
thing.
Q
My
my
problem
with
this
is,
you
know
one
of
us
becomes
mayor
and
we
have
a
right-hand
person
that
is
whatever
our
person
that
we
go.
There's
nobody
better
for
Chief
of
Staff
position,
I'm
just
using
that.
As
an
example,
you
can
that
mayor
cannot
appoint
that
person
because
they're
not
an
existing
City
employee,
even
though
they're
the
greatest
whatever,
but
it
would
prohibit
the
mayor
from
doing
that.
Q
F
That's
a
great
question,
but
actually
this
only
applies
to
interim
it.
You
can.
You
can
nominate
anyone
you
want
from
like
the
whole
world,
but
they're
saying
that
in
the
interim
it
should
be
a
city
employee
so
that
you
can't
choose
somebody.
You
know
you're
the
world's
best
chief
of
staff
from
France
and
you're,
going
to
bring
them
over
and
then
you're
going
to
make
them
an
interim
until
they're
voted
on,
which,
which
basically
is
subverting
the
power.
The
going
through
Council.
F
Was
I
I
if
I
don't
take
I'm
I
I
know
this
was
Mr
Good's
ordinance,
but
if
did.
C
I
get
that
right.
If
you
don't
mind,
I
would
like
to
go
to
miss
Cowan,
and
would
you
concur
what
councilwoman
hurt
just
stated.
N
Yes,
that
the
mayor
can
nominate
anyone,
there's
no
restriction
on
who
they
can
nominate
for
the
the
heads
of
department
or
administrative
Personnel,
but
those
that
the
city
council
will
then
have
to
make
that
appointment.
The
Restriction
becomes
with
regard
to
the
interim
appointment
as
that
being
only
an
existing
employee
and
only
for
180
or
no
more
than
180
days.
Councilman.
N
Mayor
doesn't
point
they
only
appoint
an
interim.
They
would
nominate
a
a
person
that
would
be
considered
by
then
the
city
council
for
appointment
and.
N
Q
So
would
the
mayor
be
able
to
directly
nominate
somebody
and
say
I,
don't
need
an
interim.
This
is
the
person
that
I
want
and
and
it'd
be
voted.
You
know
approved
by
Council
or
not
correct,
okay,
so
you
know
we
have
interim
there
whatever,
but
if
they
have,
you
know
whoever
of
their
choosing.
That
is
not
a
city
employee
they
can,
they
can
say
this
is
who
I
want
not
an
interim.
This
is
my
nominee
and
come
to
us
now.
If
that
nominee
is
shot
down
or
voted
down.
Q
Different
nominee
and
I
can
understand
the
argument
of
well.
You
know
the
council
can
vote
that
person
down
and
now
they
won't
have
the
opportunity
to
get
that
per
get
to
know
that
person
better.
You
know
for
a
resubmission
of
that
nomination,
I
mean
I,
don't
think
that
has
anything
to
do
with
us.
The
due
diligence
should
be.
Q
You
know,
whoever
that
nominee
is
that
they
should.
You
know,
go
around
and
and
meet
the
council
members
ahead
of
time
and
and
all
that
so
okay,
thank
you
and.
I
You
know
you
look
at
our
our
our
federal
and
our
state
they're,
a
nominee
they're,
not
appointed
they're,
a
nominee
at
first
in
the
nominee,
the
president
nominates
someone
to
go
before
the
Senate
and
in
the
Senate
hears
from
that
nominee
to
make
sure
that
nominee
fits
the
mold
of
of
of
the
Senate
and
then
there's
a
confirmation
which
for
appointment,
so
the
Americans
not
only
anybody
they
so
well
choose
we
appoint.
That's
the
only
Power
we
have
at
that
time.
We
do
the
appointments.
I
Now,
if
someone
leaves
or
resides
the
mayor
as
the
authorities,
they
still
nominate
somebody.
But
if
you're
talking
about
waiting
to
nominate
to
get
an
appointment
for
us,
there
should
be
a
an
acting
person
within
that
department
to
can
run
that
department
until
that
person
come
before
us
for
confirmation
for
the
appointment,
which
makes
sense.
You
know
you
can't
somebody
having
someone
outside
and
that
person
has
not
been
appointed
by
this
buyer
to
run
City
business,
that
that
makes
no
sense
at
all,
but
the
interim
person,
the
number
two
person
number
three
person.
L
Mary
Mary,
thank
you
so
there's
just
Nicole
Travis
administrator
of
development
and
Economic
Opportunity,
so
there's
just
a
little
difference.
When
you
talk
about
the
president
makes
nominee
nominations
it's
in
the
Constitution
for
that
procedure
to
happen.
That
way,
and
so
there's
there's
a
big
difference
in
our
governing
documents
on
how
this
works.
But
I
want
to
talk
to
you,
I
I'm,
not
here
to
talk
to
you
about
interim
and
the
appointments
I'm
coming
to
talk
to
you
from
a
recruitment
perspective
and
a
practical
implementation
perspective.
L
You,
council,
members,
have
talked
about
recruiting
the
best
and
the
brightest.
There
is
no
c-suite
executive.
That
will
take
a
position
that
has
to
wait
on
confirmation
from
a
political
body
before
no
one
will
do
it.
I
would
not
have
come
if
it
weighed
in
the
wings
of
that
now.
I
understand
why
this
has
come
to
a
head
and
I
understand
which
appointment
you're
talking
about
and
what
which
head
of
this.
But
you
cannot
recruit
the
best
and
brightest
in
political
positions.
L
I
would
not
have
gotten
my
deputy
I
wouldn't
and
we've
been
working
closely
with
you
guys
for
the
last
several
months.
I
would
have
never
taken
this
job
if
my
fate
leaving
a
good
employer
that
I
have
a
great
relation
in
quadril
working
relationship
with
to
come
to
work
so
from
a
practical
stamp
standpoint.
I'm
just
talking
to
you
about
the
implementation
of
what
may
happen
here,
you
cannot
recruit
in
local
government
when
an
appointment
is
dependent
on
a
political,
it's
dependent
on
a
political
body.
You
can't
I.
C
C
I
I
can
adhere
to
some
of
your
point.
I
don't
agree
with
all
of
it
sure,
because
if
I'm
at
a
job
already
and
I'm
applying
for
another
job,
I'm
not
going
to
leave
my
current
job
until
I
know,
I
got
the
other
job,
I,
don't
think
anybody's
gonna.
Do
that,
be
it
political
or
not?
And
I
love
you
to
death,
but
being
political
I'm,
not
leaving
my
job
until
I
know,
I
got
that.
L
L
No,
you
cannot
recruit
top
level
Executives
in
that
kind
of
you
can't
you
just
can't,
even
when
you
look
at
city
manager,
searches
across
the
state
when
they
hire
recruiting
firms,
there's
a
certain
level
of
anonymity
to
a
certain
point,
and
then
it's
public
knowledge.
You
can
look
at
those
city
managers
that
applied
that
applied
for
the
position
that
didn't
get
the
position
and
see
how
long
they're,
still
there
you're
putting
on
notice
to
your
employer,
I'm
leaving
you
and
then
you
have
no
certainty
of
moving
forward.
L
So
I'm
just
telling
you
from
I'm
like
I'm,
not
weighing
in
on
you
guys,
know
me,
but
clearly
I'm,
not
gonna,
weigh
in
on
the
politics
of
it.
But
from
a
practical
standpoint,
when
you
say
you
want
to
recruit
the
best
and
the
brightest
David
Ingram
that
was
here
with
you
this
morning
would
not
have
come
knowing
that
this
that
they
have
to
come,
he
has
to
come
before
a
political
body,
and
you
had
a
recent
experience
of
someone
getting
seeing
what
happens
with
political
bodies.
You
had
a
recent
experience
with
that.
L
So
I'm
telling
you
just
from
a
practicality
standpoint
the
rest
of
the
stuff
I'm
not
getting
in
to
the
to
the
politics
of
it,
but
this
when
this
one
when
I
know
that
I'm
I
have
a
lot
in
my
portfolio
that
I
recruit
for
the
best
and
brightest
that
have
to
be
appointed
and
I.
Try
to
give
it
to
you
immediately
I,
put
out
the
memo
to
you
and
tell
you
this
is
who
it
is.
L
L
I
Sorry,
I
just
believe:
that's
taking
some
of
the
council's
home
away.
You
know
it's,
it
can
also.
You
know.
After
we
appoint
someone,
we
have
no
authority
over
that
person.
If
we
don't
like
that
person
won't
let
that
work
ethic.
What
they're
doing
we
can't
fire
them?
We
can
do
nothing
so
to
me,
taking
our
homo
away
from
us
saying
that
we
want
to
make
sure
if
the
public
is
an
outrage
about
some
things,
you're
saying
for
us
not
to
be
able
to
have
a
home
rule,
I
can't
support.
L
It
but
but
there's
an
accountability.
There
is
an
accountability.
The
mayor,
the
the
mayor,
is
the
executive
and
administrative
arm
of
of
this,
and
so
in
the
way
that
our
government
is
set
up,
you
have
the
administrator
this,
the
administrative
arm
of
it.
That's
this
CEO
the
bucket
ultimately
stops
with
her,
and
so
when
someone
is
calling,
if
someone's
upset
with
the
convention
center
or
someone's
upset
with
Mr,
drumgle
or
Elise
or
Abby,
they
call
me
they
call
us
ultimately.
Yes,
you
cannot
do
the
hiring
fire.
L
L
P
Thank
you
very
much,
sir
yeah
I
mean
I
I
I'm
voting
on
all
these.
The
way
I,
originally
voted
and
less
of
something
you
know
happens
to
change
my
mind.
I
voted
against
this
for,
for
a
number
of
reasons,
including
this
I
I
I,
believe
that,
ultimately,
this
will
result
in
too
much
of
a
burden
placed
on
the
search
process.
There's
already
mechanisms
in
place,
I,
I,
wish
and
and
I
understand,
councilman
Good's
concerns
who,
who
made
this
they're
very
legitimate,
very
reasonable,
very
well
made
Etc
I.
P
Just
think
that,
as
presented
within
the
time
that
we
have
it's
far
too
expansive
the
the
you
have
an
executive
that
is
trying
to
recruit
folks
Etc,
and
this
would
Place
burdens
upon
that
process
that
would
ultimately
play
horribly
within
the
private
sector
or
someone
making
a
lateral
public
sector
move.
It's
just
something
again.
I
I
see
the
challenges
being
addressed
here,
but
I
voted
no,
the
first
time
and
I'll
vote
respectfully.
No,
this
time.
Thank
you
very
much.
God's.
F
I
think
we're
con
I
feel
that
people
are
confused
this.
We
already
have
this
power
like
we're.
Not
talking
about
the
power
to
I
mean
the
mayor
already
has
to
put
the
person
in
front
of
us.
We
have
to
vote
before.
So
that's
not
what
that
is
not
what
we're
talking
about
here.
We're
talking
about
interim.
E
F
We're
talking
about
people
who
are
coming
in
as
interim,
and
we're
also
saying
that
if
you
nominate
someone
once
you
can't
nominate
them
again,
so
we're
not
saying
I
mean
the
the
actual
power
of
nominating
someone
and
then
requiring
city
council
approval.
We
aren't
changing
any
of
that.
That
already
exists
and
that's
already
the
way
we're
supposed
to
do
business.
But.
F
E
F
L
Still
means
that
the
person
doesn't
have
the
job
that
they
that
you
recruited
them
for
when
I
came
before
I
was
confirmed
by
Council
I,
essentially
wasn't
an
interim
process
until
I
came
before
a
council.
So
that
means
that
I
took
a
job.
I
was
an
existing
employee,
so
I
would
be
able
to
be
selected
as
an
existing
employee,
because
I
started
but
you're
saying
that
that
person
doesn't
have
the
job
until
the
confirmation
is
final.
F
L
F
So
I'm
just
going
to
respond
because
it
was
a
response
to
me-
is
that
the
issue
was
obviously
with
with
the
last
appointment
that
we
had
to
deal
with.
I
wasn't
on
Council
yet,
but
the
idea
of
us
not
making
the
council
not
making
that
decision
and
that,
quite
frankly,
the
decision
was
already
made
and
then
Council
really
doesn't
get
the
ability
to
actually
make
a
decision,
and
that
is,
as
councilman
Gibbs
said,
our
only
opportunity
to
really
make
sure
that
we've
chosen
the
right
person.
F
X
Just
a
few
points
of
somebody,
who's
journeyed
you
with
you
on
this
leaving
the
interim
part
out
for
a
second
and
and
speaking
actually
to
councilman
Goods,
who
I
know
we,
as
we
were,
bringing
on
executive
staff.
X
X
I
think
really
it's
more
incumbent
on
us
to
control
the
process
to
make
sure
that
council
is
fully
aware
by
that
time,
that
person
comes
and
trying
to
help
us
work
with
you
to
figure
out
where,
in
that
process
is
safe
for
the
candidate
and
safe
for
the
city,
and
so
that's
kind
of
the
The
Balancing
Act
that
I'm,
using
from
my
experience
of
working
with
you
in
this
over
three
years,
and
it's
not
it's
not
easy.
There's
a
lot
of
Dynamics
in
it
and
recruiting
is
getting
harder.
X
You
know
we're
seeing
work
competition
with
folks
in
the
300
400
000
range
for
jobs
that
they're
taking
a
cut
to
come
work
in
civil
service.
So
it's
it's
just
it's
it's
a
challenge,
but
I
see
it
more
as
working
together
on
the
process
than
trying
to
to
change
language
that
may
or
may
not
make
a
difference
anymore.
So.
I
I
So
if
this
Council
goes
through
the
process
you
get
who
you
want,
but
this
counselor
says
no,
what
happens
next?
What
happens
next,
so
I
don't
understand
how
this
body
is.
A
council
can
sit
here
and
say
nothing
is
wrong
with
this
process.
I
have
a
real
issue
with
that
for
council
members
of
the
city
and
knowing
that
there's
an
issue
with
this
language,
and
we
do
nothing.
I
I
have
a
problem
with
you
know:
I'm
a
policeman,
I'm,
sorry
I
go
by
the
rules
John,
you
know
the
rules
are
rules
and
there
and
when
a
policy
is
not
right,
we
fix
the
policy,
we're
not
fixing
the
policy.
Here.
Gentlemen,
if
which
Council
vote
someone
down
the
mayor,
can
bring
that
person
back
50
million
times
from
what
the
last
City
attorney
told.
We
have
no
recourse,
but
to
keep
going
back
and
back
and
forth,
there
has
to
be
a
process.
A
balance
like,
like
Chief
Bennett,
says
where's,
the
balance.
I
I
L
Course,
I
think
in
response
to
what
you,
in
response
to
the
what
I
heard
after
the
one
particular
confirmation
that
kind
of
drummed
this
up
right
was
the
length
of
time
get
for
Council.
Being
aware,
and
some
to
what
Mr
Bennett
was
just
saying,
is
the
process
in
introducing
the
candidate
to
council
and
having
that
opportunity
and
each
confirmation
I
think
I,
probably
am
the
only
administrator
that
has
brought
you
three
or
four
confirmations
in
the
last
since
this
period
of
time,
which.
I
L
You
did
it
the
right
way,
but
but
I'm
saying
but
but
we
we
learned
because
we
heard
what
council
said
about
the
process
and
and
I
didn't
do
that
process
independently
I
did
that
process
in
communication
with
Chief
Bennett
with
HR
and
saying
okay.
This
is
the
feedback
that
we
have
and
so
each
process
so
I
I
asked
you
when
we
brought
at
least
drum
going
Abby
feely
to
you
and
some
were
saying
well,
this
is
kind
of
quick
and
you
know
so
I'm
like
okay,
I'm,
I'm
learning.
L
So
then
I
bring
you
know
the
others
to
you
and
we're
tweaking
and
learning
we're
constantly
evolving
the
process.
And
so
it's
not
like
it's
not
me
doing
it
right.
It's
us
learning
through
the
process
and
trying
to
walk
that
fine
line
and
that
balance
to
be
responsive
to
what
you're,
asking
for
and
the
interaction
that
you
want
to
have
with
the
candidates
before
a
nomination.
So.
V
No,
we
we
can
go
around
around
I
I
think
we
should
make
a
motion
at
some
point
and
vote
on
it,
but
Miss
Travis
mentioned
you
know.
I
I
agree
with
you
99.9
of
the
time,
but
you
mentioned
a
few
minutes
ago,
CEO
and
kind
of
comparing
it
to
a
company.
If,
if
this
was
a
company,
we
would
be
the
board
of
directors,
I
thought
about
this
a
lot
and
then
we
could
fire
the
mayor.
We
can't
do
that
so.
E
L
L
V
So
it
is
a,
it
is
a
difference.
You
know
you
saw
what
happened
at
Bob
chapek.
The
board
doesn't
like
him,
so
he's
gone,
so
the
the
the
the
other
thing
is.
What
this
all
this
is
doing
is
is
putting
the
right
words
in
for
what
actually
happens
if
we
had
disagreed
with
the
person
this
morning,
we
would
have
maybe
gone
for
multiple
rounds
anyway,
without
this
language
being
changed,
but
because
the
process
went
well
and
it
was
a
good
candidate.
V
Didn't
what
happened,
though,
that
this
one
time-
and
this
was
with
the
the
police
chief-
is
that
the
one
reason
for
the
word
nominate
is
to
be
respectful
to
the
public,
because
the
candidate
was
presented
as
the
police
chief
to
the
public
and
and
I
think
the
reason
why
I
supported
this
is
because
it
was
disrespectful
to
the
public,
not
that
the
person
did
anything
wrong,
but
just
in
the
in
and
the
person
being
presented
as
the
final
person,
because
the
public
thought.
Why
did
why?
Don't
we
have
any
input?
V
Why
doesn't
the
public
have
any
input
and
that
position
happens
to
be
a
really
important
position,
and
so
the
the
administration
pushed
push
push,
despite
all
the
the
the
community's
concerns
about
things
that
had
happened
the
past
and
there
were
promises
made
that
things
wouldn't
happen
again
and
and
and
so
we
were,
we
were
pushed
I
think
it
was
a
five
to
two
vote,
we'll
we'll
see
whether
that's
a
was
a
good
decision
or
not,
but
I
think
there
has
to
be
a
a
collaborative
approach
once
once
these,
as
as
Mr
Goode
said
once
these
folks
are
appointed,
we
have
no
power
over
them.
V
I
tried
in
the
charter
to
change
to
get
us
to
be
able
to
fire
the
City
attorney,
which
I
think
we
should
be
able
to.
But
if,
if
City
staff
as
they
are,
we've
got
documents
on
it
that
you
know,
set
City
Council
Members
up
against
each
other
or
do
opposition
research
on
us.
We
can't
fire
them.
V
We
can
ask
the
staff
the
minute
the
mayor
Administration
to
fire
them,
but
they
don't
I,
hear
that
more
than
half
of
the
senior
staff
don't
hit
the
residency
requirement,
and
so
it's
it's
ultimately
up
to
the
mayor
and
how
the
mayor
runs.
Everything
ensure
the
mayor
is
going
to
be
accountable,
but
the
public
wants
us
to
be
accountable
too
and
to
have
more
scrutiny
over
these
things
and
so
I
think
changing
a
couple.
Words
is
not
not
a
significant
change.
V
It
only
is
going
to
reflect
what
what
is
actually
happening
in
practice,
except
these
exceptions,
and
we
also
have
to
worry
about
not
whether
you,
if
you
like
this
situation
now
between
City
Council
on
the
mayor,
you
have
to
think
about
what,
if
it's
even
worse,
I,
don't
know
how
it
could
be
worse,
but
we
have
to
think
about
that
possibility.
Thank
you.
F
I
only
have
a
quick
editor's
change,
scrivener's
error
in
the
actual
chartered
language.
The
word
section
should
be
capitalized
before
6.03
in
both
instances.
So
that
is
my
only
request.
T
I
My
mind
all
screwed
up
but
now
I'm
sorry
folks,
file,
number
e2022-8ch2
or
to
represented
further
in
consideration
ordinance
relating
to
the
government
of
Seattle
Florida
submitting
to
the
electors
of
the
city.
A
proposed
amendment
to
revised
Charter
of
the
city
of
Tampa
of
1975
as
a
minute
to
clarify
that
the
mayor's
nomination
for
for
heads
of
departments
and
other
city
employees
set
out
in
section
6.03
must
be
approved
by
four
votes
of
city
council
and
to
provide
for
internal
appointments.
Existing
city
employees
by
the
mayor
for
Max
of
180
days
providing
effective
date.
C
E
U
P
Okay,
I
wanted
to
make
quote
clarify
if
I
may
just
really
fast
on
that
term
limits
when
we
passed
that
as
four
because
councilman
Carlson
mentioned
something
that
that's
true
four
consecutive
full
terms
correct.
N
Okay
on
to
the
last
item
in
this
ordinance
before
you
is
amending
section
10.10
of
the
charter
review
addressing
Charter
review
advisory
commission
first
thing-
it
does
is
correct,
a
scrivener's
error
and
then
it
also
provides
the
beginning
in
2025
and
every
five
years
thereafter
there
would
be
a
charter
review
advisory
committee
established
legal
counsel,
who
is
not
a
city
employee,
would
serve
as
legal
advisor
to
the
citizens.
I'm
sorry
to
the
Charter
review
board
and
a
professional
facilitator
would
be
engaged
by
the
city
with
city
council
approval.
N
One
other
item
I
wanted
to
just
let
you
know
is
when
we
went
through
these
ordinances
and
it
was
discussed
with
both
city
council.
We
were
city
council
attorney
and
your
City
attorney.
They
asked
me
whether
or
not
clients
had
amended
the
frequency
in
which
their
Charter
review
advisory
committees
meet,
and
we
said
yes
in
fact,
we've
had
this
before.
Specifically
the
city
of
Largo
several
years
ago,
had
Charter
review
every
10
years,
and
then
they
changed
it
to
every
five
now.
N
Their
experience
was
that
and
the
feedback
that
they
received
from
their
Charter
review
commission
was,
by
the
time
they
had
gone
through.
An
in-depth
review
had
everything
done
back
to
their
Council
and
then
on
the
ballot.
There
was
maybe
a
year
break
and
they
were
starting
again,
and
so
they
have
subsequently
changed
it
from
five
to
seven.
So
I
just
offer
that
as
information
to
you
for
your
consideration,
but
the
mem
or
the
ordinance
as
drafted
is
every
five
years
as
directed.
F
F
F
Four
years
does
seem
a
little
soon,
but
again,
I
I,
either
way.
I
would
like
it
to
be
in
some
form
of
a
multiple
of
four
so
that
we
can
make
sure
it
gets
on
the
ballot
with
the
mayoral
and
the
council
elections
unless
we
would
want
to
open
the
can
of
worms
to
the
other
elections,
but
I
kind
of
like
all
Municipal
stuff
together
just.
T
Just
for
clarification,
and
thank
you
for
raising
that
you
can
have
it
at
it,
it's
a
general
election
as
well,
so
that
would
be
every
two
years.
In
this
case,
the
way
the
deadlines
have
fallen
and
the
like
and
Council
schedule
it's
on
the
municipal
election,
but
it
is
either
choice.
T
T
But
the
County's
position
was
at
five
years
does
seem
like
it
comes
up
very
quickly
to
them
and
they're,
always
almost
in
a
position
of
in
going
on
to
the
next
one,
and
if
he
had
his
brothers,
he
expressed
with
me
at
the
time
and
I
haven't
verified
that
but
I'll
just
relay
it
that
that
he
thought
that
was
a
very
quick
turnaround.
That
was
his
opinion
at
the
time,
and
that
was
what
2018.
T
I
I
think
10,
in
my
opinion,
I
think
10
is
too
long.
I
mean
the
problem.
I
would
Aid
because
of
the
two
terms,
but
I
think
10
is
too
long
because
things
do
come
up.
You
know
you
need
to
address
them.
I
Nothing.
Foreign.
F
Sorry
I
can
I
would
make
an
amendment
to
make
it
every
eight
years,
so
instead
of
every
10
years,
every
eight
years,
which
actually
means
that
they
would
start
pretty
soon,
but
maybe
not
super
soon.
But
yes,
so
so
yes,
every
eight
years
that
and
then
which
might
allow
them
to
do
kind
of
a
more
in-depth
I
I
felt
that
I'll
be
honest.
13
months
wasn't
long
enough.
So
so,
if
it's
a
two-year
process
and
every
eight
years
you
have
you
have
enough
time
so
and.
C
And
I
I
would
like
to
I
do
agree
with
you,
after
a
certain
amount
of
time,
and
let's
just
say,
24
years,
that
13
months
will
get
shorter
and
shorter,
because
each
time
and
I
I
like
this
idea,
because
then
each
council
person
whomever
they
are,
can
appoint
somebody
with
their
ideas,
their
thoughts,
what
they
like,
what
they
don't
like,
what
they
want
to
see
changed
so
that
maybe
the
council
itself
won't
have
to
be
doing.
Charter
amendments,
yes,
Council
on
her.
F
Tab,
the
only
other
question
is
just
commencing
in
what
year.
Please
help
me
with
math,
because
my.
F
C
F
F
Will
an
ordinance
relating
to
the
government
is:
does
this
one
have
can
I
read
this,
as
is
because
I
I
can't
because
we
are
changing
it?
It's.
N
F
Before
us,
please,
yes,
the
final
numbers,
this
file
number
e2022-8
chapter
two.
This
is
dealing
with
section
10.10.
F
I
T
Chairman,
if
I
could
just
Mr
chairman
Pro
tem,
if
I
could
just
follow
up
on
where
we
stand
with
this
now,
is
that
I
think?
Why
don't
you?
Why
don't
you
say
that
for
the
records
of
the
calendar.
B
T
B
B
U
Y
F
T
The
question,
then,
is
with
regard
to
the
three
that
passed:
those
can't
be
advertised
to
come
back
by
the
15th.
The
way
things
are
structured
is.
P
F
T
My
my
only
concern
that
I
have
to
think
through
and
I
could
talk
with
the
city
attorney
and
confirm.
This
is
just
the
process
after
the
fifth,
how
long
it
takes
for
the
mayor
to
make
the
decision
as
to
what
the
mayor's
decision
is
with
regard
to
any
of
the
ones
that
pass
and
then
the
process
for
it
coming
back
in
in
what
form
of
fashion
and
what
date,
and
that's
something
that
we.
N
N
B
Q
Q
Q
A
Q
Q
Council
member
Goods
is
that
54,
which
is
for
February,
2nd
2023
at
1,
30
p.m,
and
item
55,
which
is
scheduled
for
February,
2nd
2023
at
1,
30
p.m.
Second,
from
council
member
Miranda.
F
Q
Have
a
motion
council,
member,
good
council
member,
her
attack
all
in
favor
aye
aye,
all
right
now
that
we
have
these
hearings
open,
can
I
get
a
motion
to
remove
item
57
from
the
agenda
sergeant
from
council
member
good
councilman
Miranda
all
in
favor.
W
Q
A
A
E
E
E
E
E
A
A
A
A
W
W
V
T
T
Your
call,
ultimately,
it's
councils.
Z
Jamie
Mayer
with
the
law
from
hillward
Henderson
representing
the
applicant,
if
it's
all
right,
I'll
just
talk
to
the
client
for
one
minute
to
discuss,
although
just
to
confirm
councilman
Viera
will
be
returning
yeah.
F
Z
F
Y
F
F
Z
We're
happy
to
go
forward
if,
as
once,
Mr
Vera
gets
back.
If
that's
okay
or
just
move
forward
now
and
he'll,
be.
W
While
she's
handing
out
the
packets
kamaria
pet,
a
snackle
from
the
legal
department
from
the
city
attorney's
office,
again
I'm
here
on
behalf
regarding
item
number
56,
which
is
vrb
case
vrb
22-70
for
the
property
located
at
3122
West
San
Jose
Street,
there
was
a
petition
for
review
that
was
filed
on
the
behalf
of
the
excuse
me
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
who
is
Mark
Mobley.
He
owns
Mobley
homes,
Customs
LLC
and
Miss
Myers.
Here
representing
him
as
his
authorized
agent.
W
The
request
that
was
made
to
the
various
review
board
was
regarding
approval
to
remove
a
grand
tree.
W
The
various
review
board
heard
the
requests
and
conduct
held
a
public
hearing
on
September
13
2022
and
denied
the
request
to
remove
the
Grand
Tree
based
upon
the
applicant,
not
meeting
the
standard
set
forth
in
code,
section
27-284.2,
0.5,
subsection,
F4
I,
previously
handed
city
council
or
provided
city
council,
the
relevant
code
section,
which
is
code
section
27-61,
subsection
j2a.
That
provides
the
parameters
in
which
city
council
can
conduct
a
review
hearing
and
also
the
relevant
code.
W
As
previously
stated
on
in
code,
section
27-61,
subsection
J2.
The
standard
of
review
for
this
matter
is
a
de
novo
standard
of
review.
City
council,
which
means
city
council,
should
not
be
limited
in
its
review
to
the
information
or
documentation
or
evidence
upon
which
the
board
based
its
determination.
W
There
are
two
staff
members
present
who
will
provide
an
explanation
of
the
decision
from
the
variants
were
reborn
and
what
the
application
was.
Those
staff
members
are
Jane
Madu
and
Stephen
Eiser
from
natural
resources
after
city
council
hears.
Excuse
me.
Here's
all
the
evidence
in
the
case
and
all
the
documentations
city
council
can
take
three
actions.
T
If
we
can
Mr
chairman
before
you
begin
your
presentation
just
if
there
have
been
any
ex
parte
verbal
Communications,
please
disclose
them
if
there
are
any
that
need
to
be
disclosed
prior
to
this
hearing
continuing
and
also
just
a
motion
to
receive
and
file
the
written
ex
parte
Communications.
AA
Steven
eister
with
natural
resources,
I
have
been
sworn
in.
This
kind
of
this
is
the
recap:
here's
the
property
information,
the
property
owner
is
Mobley
homes,
Customs
LLC,
the
applicant
is
Mark
Mobley.
The
address
is
3122
West
San
Jose
Street,
the
zoning
is
rs60.
The
variance
requested
is
to
remove
a
Grand
Tree
to
construct
a
new
single-family
residence.
Q
This
and
I,
if
they
could
put
this
on
our
screen,
we
always
see
as
a
construction
cone
there
we
go.
Thank
you
we'll.
E
AA
AA
AA
These
are
some
photos
of
the
tree.
Just
so
you
guys
can
kind
of
see
the
overall
size.
The
dbh
of
the
tree
was
43
inches.
The
canopy
thread
was
57
by
66,
and
the
rating
on
the
tree
was
B6.
Q
All
right.
Do
we
have
another
member
of
City
staff
that
is
going
to
be
presenting,
or
that
was
it
that
is
it
okay.
Next
up,
we
have
the
applicant.
Z
Good
afternoon
again,
Jamie
Mayer,
representing
the
applicant
from
the
law
firm
Howard,
Henderson,
101,
East
Kennedy
Boulevard
Suite
3700
in
Tampa
I,
have
been
sworn
I,
have
a
PowerPoint
as
usual
and
I
know
that
it
changes
sometimes
who
I'm
supposed
to
give
it
to.
So,
if
I
I'll
try
here,
I
guess:
oh
okay,.
Z
Alrighty
that
was
easier
than
last
time.
I
also
have
with
me
here
today:
Mr
Ricky
pederica
from
dark
Moss
LLC,
who
will
be
providing
testimony.
I
have
submitted
a
copy
of
his
CV
into
the
record
request,
DB
accepted
as
an
expert
before
he
provides
testimony,
though
I
would
like
to
just
walk
you
through
some
more
background
in
addition
to
what
staff
has
provided
and
to
discuss
in
a
little
more
detail,
the
the
reason
we're
appealing
this
decision.
Z
So
again,
as
you
saw,
the
decision
appealed,
was
a
decision
as
a
variance
review
board
to
deny
a
request
to
remove
one
grand
treat
for
the
construction
of
a
new
single-family
residence
in
the
rs60
zoning
District.
Z
The
proposed
new
structure
is
two
stories
that
is
permitted
in
the
rs60
zoning
District.
The
setbacks
with
which
the
tree
directly
conflicts
are
also
those
that
are
permitted
in
the
rs60
zoning
District.
So
the
issue
is
that
the
location
of
the
tree
on
the
site
is
directly
within
the
buildable
envelope
that
is
permitted
by
the
zoning
District.
Z
As
you
can
see
from
the
aerial,
the
site
is
heavily
wooded.
It's
actually
probably
got
the
most
trees
generally.
On
or
around
it
out
of
the
entire
block
now
I
want
to
be
clear.
There
are
a
number
of
trees,
like
I,
said
on
and
around
the
site
that
affect
the
site,
the
only
one
being
requested
to
be
removed.
Z
I'll
show
you
in
a
couple
slides
and
you've
already
seen
from
natural
resources,
but
I
wanted
to
show
you
the
other
trees
that
will
remain
on
the
site.
This
is
not
going
to
be
raised,
there's
going
to
be
trees
remaining
on
and
around
the
site
for
lack
of
a
better
term
I've
named
them
tree
a
b
and
c,
and
have
labeled
them
relative
to
the
site
plan.
This
tree
is
along
San,
Jose
Street
and
is
going
to
remain
tree.
B
is
in
the
rear
corner
of
the
site
and
will
remain
entry.
Z
Z
So
this
tree
is
located
pretty
centrally
to
the
site
again
that
what
you're
looking
at
what
you
see
is
part
of
the
buy
right
building
envelope.
You
know
that
a
structure
that
is
proposed
here
could
be
built
on
under
the
zoning
and
the
canopy
takes
up
a
lot
of
sight
as
well
all
right.
So,
although,
as
Ms
Pettis
knuckle
pointed
out,
this
is
a
de
novo
hearing.
I
want
to
talk
about
the
reason
that
we
are
appealing
to
you
to
achieve
a
different
result.
The
variance
review
board
did
air
in
multiple
ways.
Z
Z
That
is
not
even
in
the
current
tree
code
anymore,
that
term
and
it
was
used-
and
many
of
you
are
probably
familiar
with
it,
because
this
change
was
in
2019,
but
it
was
used
throughout
this
hearing
and
it
was
blended
with
the
current
code
that
applies,
but
the
current
code
uses
the
reasonable
reconfiguration
standard,
which
Mr
perderica
will
do
a
better
job
of
walking
you
through
than
I
would,
but
they
misapplied
that
term
as
well
and
we'll
show
you
how
ultimately,
they
also
relied
on
inappropriate
bases
for
denial
that
were
not
rooted
in
the
code
criteria
which
they
were
required
to
apply.
Z
Our
firm
was
not
at
the
variance
review
board
hearing,
however,
when
we
reviewed
the
transcript
and
saw
how
the
code
had
been
misapplied.
The
first
step
was
to
ask
Ricky
pederica,
who
better
to
ask,
because
he
was
very
involved
in
the
you
know:
transition
of
these
codes
and
he's
applied
them
both.
So
his
testimony
will
be
invaluable
again.
To
reiterate,
the
code
was
overhauled
in
2019
to
create
an
objective
process.
There
were
even
workshops
held
training,
City
board
members
are
sitting
sitting
board
members
how
to
apply
it
because
it
was
such
a
different
result.
Z
Again,
the
old
standard
was
subjective.
It
was
more
focused
on
any
conceivable
structure
that
could
be
built
on
the
property.
In
this
case
it
would
be
a
single
family
home,
but
any
conceivable
configuration
or
size
of
that
structure
that
you
could
work
around
the
tree
that
could
be
considered
a
reasonable
use
under
the
code
and
the
tree
would
have
to
remain
the
new
structure
or
the
new
standard
is
objective,
evaluating
the
actual
structure
that
a
given
applicant
has
proposed
and
asking
can
this
structure
not
any
conceivable
structure?
Z
But
can
this
structure
be
reasonably
reconfigured
and
I'm
using
quotes
here,
because
that
is
a
defined
term
in
the
code
such
that
it
could
save
the
tree
and
the
term
reasonable
reconfiguration
is
not
a
subjective
standard,
it
is
clearly
defined.
It
either
is
or
it
is
not,
and
I'll
turn
it
over.
For
a
few
minutes
close
to
Mr
perderica,
to
explain
that
thank.
AB
AB
Impact
reviewed
by
commission,
which
is
the
BRB
or
or
your
body
small
out
criteria
would
apply
to
a
lot
but
not
to
the
tree,
because
it's
not
located
in
the
trz
so
the,
which
is
why
they
went
to
the
vrb
so
they're,
subject
to
the
other
construction
activity,
impact
criteria
which
is
shown
on
the
slide,
but
the
main
component
that
I'm
speaking
to
is
on
the
bottom,
no
other
reasonable
reconfiguration
of
the
development,
so
that
is
defined
in
the
footnote.
5
of
table
284.2.5
kind
of
five
bullet
points.
AB
If
this,
if
these
things
can
be
done
to
the
building
footprint
as
proposed,
then
it
shall
be
considered.
Basically,
it
shall
be
considered
reasonable.
Otherwise
it
would
be
in
reason
unreasonable.
So
it
does
not
adjust
the
structure
more
than
Allowed
by
Design
exception,
so
not
more
than
25
percent
front
or
back
or
one
foot
side
to
side
does
not
change
the
number
of
stories
proposed.
AB
So
it
doesn't
go
from
two
to
three
or
one
or
two
to
one
and
it's
not
adversely
alter
internal
flow
or
function
of
the
proposed
structure,
which
is
you
know,
a
very
flavorful
statement
on
what
internal
flow
and
function
is,
but
I've
always
interpreted.
AB
As
is
this
the
same
program
of
the
building
that
we're
proposing
if
just
a
different
shape,
or
did
we
lose
program,
lose
elements
of
the
building
for
tree
preservation,
so
that,
like
I,
said,
the
design
exception
did
not
does
not
shift
the
building
far
enough
outside
from
causing
the
tree
or
the
building
to
be
preserved
or
the
tree
to
be
preserved
without
the
building
footprint
being
affected.
So
it
doesn't
meet
the
design
exception.
Adjustment.
AB
Two
options
were
proposed
at
the
vrb,
both
basically
Notch
out
a
quarter
of
the
building,
and
this
is
a
which
is
shown
in
red,
which
is
a
approximately
30
percent
of
the
building's
Square
gross
square.
Footage
left
out
to
accommodate
tree
a
which
I
evaluated
as
tree
one
and
determined
to
be
a
43
inch
tree
B6,
non-hazardous
Grand,
Tree
in
in
agreement
with
natural
resources.
AB
So
there's
no
dis
dispute
about
the
condition
just
about
what
reasonable
reconfiguration
is
so
both
of
these
example
we
lose
or
30
percent
of
the
building
footprint
is
lost
to
the
tree
preservation
commitment
addressed
here
and
additionally,
by
showing
the
floor
plan
of
the
building,
we
can
better
understand
of
the
proposed
building
better
understand
what
actually
is
lost
from
the
internal
forward
function,
which
in
this
case
the
master
suite
no
longer
has
a
master
bath
or
closet.
AB
AB
Could
it
be
increased
in
floors
or
decreased
in
floors
without
losing
square
footage?
No,
so
by
those
criteria,
we,
in
my
opinion,
it's
no
longer
reasonable
reconfiguration.
This
was
proposed
by
staff.
This
option,
which
is
a
slight
hybrid
of
what
was
proposed
by
Mr
Mobley,
but
it
locates
an
accessory
structure
for
a
garage.
AB
In
my
opinion,
this
is
technically
unreasonable,
reconfiguration
because
we've
lost
the
30
percent
roughly
of
the
lot
area
and
by
literally
breaking
the
building
into
two
and
and
all
that's
been
broken
off
is
the
garage.
AB
Z
So,
just
to
summarize,
and
thank
you,
Mr
Puerto
Rico,
for
your
testimony,
so
you've
heard
how
the
factors
of
the
board
was
required
to
consider
and
you've
seen
them
in
the
standard
that
was
provided
to
you
by
the
City
attorney
I'm
sure
in
your
packets.
The
board
was
required
to
consider
factors
in
the
code,
such
as
the
impact
of
the
proposed
structure
on
the
tree.
Well,
it's
as
you've
seen
it's
would
be
going
right
through
the
trunk.
Z
That
probably
would
have
been
the
result,
but
that
is
not
the
standard
any
longer,
and
that
was
a
conscious
decision
to
change
the
code.
It
is
unrecognizable
from
the
standard
that
existed
in
2019
and
prior
and
also
as
an
Express
reason
for
denial
when
they
listed
their
reasons
for
denying
the
application.
Z
They
expressly
stated
that
the
number
of
speakers
and
letters
in
opposition
could
not
be
ignored.
That
was
a
reason
for
denial.
There
is
well-established
case
law
that
says
a
large
number
of
residents
opposing
or
appearing
to
object
is
not
a
valid
basis
for
denial
of
a
permit,
and
they
still
use
that
as
a
basis
of
denial
of
the
permit.
Z
In
summary,
you've
seen
how
this
structure
cannot
be
reasonably
reconfigured
again,
as
that
term
is
defined
in
the
code.
It
is
not
subjective.
It
is
not
anybody's
idea
of
what
reasonable
could
be.
The
dictionary
definition
of
the
term
is
a
defined
term
with
criteria
and
you've
seen
how
it
cannot
be
reasonably
reconfigured.
Therefore,
the
structure
that
is
proposed
on
this
small
lot,
where
several
trees
are
at
issue,
this
particular
one
is
centrally
located.
It
is
located
within
the
buildable
area
that
is
created
by
the
zoning
code.
Z
The
application
of
the
correct
code
standard
would
have
resulted
in
an
objective
finding
that
the
tree
must
be
removed.
Therefore,
we
respectfully
request
that
city
council
apply
the
correct
code
standard
and
reverse
the
vrb's
decision.
Thank
you.
Q
B
B
Q
Q
Miss
pointer,
we'll
come
back
to
you
we'll
start
the
public
comment,
that's
in
the
room,
so
just
stand
by
all
right.
If
you're
here
to
speak
on
this
item,
please
line
up
if
you
are
able
to,
and
you
will
have
three
minutes
to
speak,
please
state
your
name
before
speaking.
Thank
you.
Yes,
ma'am.
Y
Good
afternoon,
I'm
Mary,
Lee
motto
and
I
have
been
sworn
in
I'm
a
graduate
of
the
mayor's
neighborhood
University
class
10
of
2018.
member
of
Palma
Cena
neighborhood
association
and
registered
member
of
the
City
Emergency
Response
Team,
but,
most
importantly,
I
built
a
house
three
properties
away
from
the
property
in
question.
Y
Y
It's
one
of
the
largest
trees
in
my
community
I
believe
the
removal
of
this
tree
would
cause
my
family
direct
harm
in
the
form
of
diminished
property
value
due
to
reduction
of
the
visible
tree
canopy,
the
neighborhood
charm
that
I
spent
the
money
to
build
my
house
in
and
the
available
shade
to
walk
my
dogs
in
on
severely
hot
days
in
Tampa.
Our
tree
canopy
is
critical
to
keeping
our
temperatures
down.
Y
Please
help
protect
the
tree
canopy
of
our
city.
According
to
the
arborist
report,
this
tree
would
have
to
be
replaced
by
16
trees
16
to
get
the
value
it
provides
and
the
impact
available
from
it
today
of
the
42
Property
Owners,
listed
in
the
petition
for
a
review
of
the
vrb
decision.
Document
I
personally
contacted
the
following
Property
Owners
today
and
have
authorization
from
each
of
them
to
enter
their
name
on
record
as
being
opposed
to
the
removal
of
this
tree.
Y
Caroline
Carrie,
Martin,
Fowler,
Mary,
Ellen,
Walker,
Doris
and
Plath.
In
addition,
Nancy
Bryant
is
a
homeowner
in
the
neighborhood
and
authorized
me
today
to
enter
her
name
as
opposed.
Megan
label
is
also
granted
me
authority
to
enter
her
name
on
record
for
this
agenda
item
as
being
strongly
opposed.
She
is
resident
property,
renter
immediately
adjacent
to
the
lot
and
has
emailed
her
strong
objection
as
well.
It
is
posted
in
the
supporting
materials
for
this
agenda
item.
Y
AC
My
name
is
Carol
Ann
Bennett
I'm
a
lifelong
Tampa
resident
several
years
ago.
The
building
Community
was
fed
up
with
the
Tampa
tree
code.
They
wanted
to
look
at
a
property
and
know
what
they
could
build.
They
needed
predictability
to
evaluate
their
purchases
so
for
a
year
and
a
half
tree,
something
say
something
and
Builders
and
city
council
worked
together
to
write
a
new
Tampa
tree
code.
I
am
here
today
asking
you
to
uphold
the
code
that
you
and
I
and
the
builders
wrote
together.
AC
AC
We
sacrificed
the
trees
inside
the
trz
to
save
the
trees
outside
the
trz.
But
if
Builders
can
cut
down
those
trees
too,
then
what
did
they
give
up?
What
happened
to
their
compromise?
We
negotiated
in
good
faith
and
I.
Believe
city
council
negotiated
in
good
faith
when
they
unanimously
approved
the
new
tree
code.
All
the
stakeholders
compromised
to
achieve
predictability
so
that
time
and
resources
aren't
wasted,
and
yet
here
we
are
again
wasting
time
and
resources.
This
tree
is
not
in
the
trz.
It
is
a
very
healthy
b-rated
tree
that
will
live
for
centuries.
AC
There
was
a
normal
sized
house
in
good
condition
on
this
property.
Multiple
people
testified
to
the
vrb
that
they
would
have
loved
to
buy
and
live
in
that
house
for
the
515
thousand
dollars
that
Mr
Mobley
paid
for
it,
but
they
never
got
the
chance
because
it
never
went
on
the
market,
so
they
are
still
looking
for
a
home.
Arborist
David
Riley
evaluated
this
tree
before
the
sale.
The
buyer
knew
it
was
a
very
healthy
Grand
Oak
that
was
not
in
the
trz
and
could
not
be
removed.
AC
There
are
very
specific
criteria
you
must
consider
consider
your
decision
boils
down
to
this.
Can
a
home
be
reasonably
configured
on
this
lot
without
killing
killing
this
Grand
Tree?
The
answer
is
an
obvious.
Yes,
the
City
Arborist
thinks
it
can
be
saved
just
by
having
a
detached
garage
and
using
some
of
the
pure
and
lentil
Construction.
AC
This
property
is
on
the
market
in
a
pending
status
as
a
six
bedroom.
Four
bath,
3515
square
foot
house,
with
a
price
tag
of
one
million,
five
hundred
and
ninety
nine
thousand
dollars
on
a
50
by
100
lot.
A
new
house
can
be
built
there
without
damaging
the
tree.
It
might
need
to
be
smaller
than
six
bedrooms,
but
that
sounds
like
reasonable
configuration
to
me.
We
have
a
tree
code
that
told
him
he
could
not
remove
this
tree.
The
vrb
evaluated
the
criteria
and
voted
five
to
one
that
he
could
not
remove
this
tree.
AC
Please
uphold
the
vrb
ruling
and
deny
the
variants.
If
everyone
knows
the
city
is
going
to
enforce
the
tree
code,
that
the
stakeholders
wrote,
people
will
start
building
the
right
thing
in
the
right
place
and
your
time
and
resources
won't
be
wasted
on
variances
and
appeals,
and
you
will
give
Builders
the
predictability
that
they
demanded.
Thank.
G
Of
City
tree
I'm
going
off
script,
I'm
going
to
use
the
force
fluke.
I,
think
this
is
what
happens
you
know
experts
come
in
when
a
builder
wants
to
build
on
property.
That
is
in
the
way
with
a
tree.
That's
that's
in
the
way
I'm
gonna
bite
on
this
reasonable
reconfiguration
issue.
G
G
G
He
did
not
try
to
reasonably
reconfigure
this
house.
A
Sharpie
marker
sketch
over
old
plans,
is
not
reasonable.
Reconfiguration,
Mr
Mobley
in
the
vrb
admitted
he
has
no
architect
on
staff.
He
has
nobody
that
can
go
in
and
say
you
know
Mr
Mobley.
If
we
just
shift
this
over
a
little
bit,
maybe
we
can
make.
Maybe
we
can
save
this
tree?
G
It's
not
there,
so
he
can't
do
it
and
he's
not
going
to
spend
the
money
to
do
it
because
he
knows
what
it
costs
to
build
a
house
on
this
property
with
the
amount
of
materials
that
he
used
for
every
other
single
property
that
he
is
plopping
down
on
pieces
of
land
throughout
South
Tampa,
without
even
giving
any
consideration
for
design
and
looking
at
things
that
actually
sort
of
fit
with
the
neighborhood
he's
in
it.
For
the
money
he's
building
boxes,
people
will
buy
for
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars.
G
He
doesn't
care
about
what
people
can
afford.
He
knows
his
Market.
He
knows
that
people
can
buy
his
houses
and
he's
putting
them
up.
And
what
is
he
taking
away
he's
taking
away
you
Mr
Miranda
you
talk
about,
you
don't
want
to
give
away
water
he's,
taking
away
air
he's,
taking
away
shade
he's
taking
away.
We
are
selling
that
to
the
highest
bidder
and
Mr.
Mobley
is
one
of
the
worst
offenders
for
getting
that
and
giving
nothing
back
to
the
city
of
Tampa.
G
He
is
looking
to
make
money.
He
wants
his
way.
The
vrb
said
they
could
not
have
his
way
and
they
said
why
he
could
not
have
his
way
and
there's
a
lot
of
smoke
and
mirrors
and
like
yeah,
just
throwing
some
verbiage
up,
you
guys
aren't
going
to
have
time
to
look
into
that.
The
fact
is
the
vrb
said:
look
you
can
put
this
up
the
tree.
Is
this
far
away
from
where
the
envelope
is?
G
Maybe
you
can
fix
it
so
that
you
can
go
ahead
and
build
a
house
there
doesn't
want
to
do
it
too
much
trouble.
So
he
brings
a
lawyer
and
he
brings
an
expert
and
he
goes
ahead
and
he
throws
it
out
in
front
of
you
guys
and
he's
going
to
play.
You
they're
going
to
play
you
and
I
hope
they
don't.
Thank
you
for
your
service.
Thank
you,
sir.
AD
AE
Caroline
d
I'm
a
promisee
resident
this
morning,
I
walked
by
the
tree
and
questioned
two
blocks
from
my
house.
My
husband
and
I
often
walk
by
in
the
evening
and
enjoy
this
beautiful
Oak.
AE
That
goes
from
lot
line
to
lot
line.
This
tree
is
in
what
would
be
known
as
the
backyard
of
the
lot
when
there
were
such
things
as
backyards.
It's
not
centrally
located,
as
they
have
said
it's
towards
the
back.
It's
towards
the
side.
It's
in
the
backyard,
the
developer,
Mr
bothley
could
build
around
the
tree,
but
that
is
not
what
he
does.
He
has
his
house
plans
and
the
lot
needs
to
conform
to
his
cookie
cutter
houses,
not
the
other
way
around.
Q
Yes,
we
if
we
could
activate
the
overhead.
Q
Q
AF
Q
Fine
with
me
any
objective
from
countdown
who
has
the
video
did
you
handle,
he.
AF
AF
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
Lorraine
Perino
I
live
in
South
Tampa
I'm,
president
of
the
Tampa
tree
advocacy
group
on
July
7
2022,
the
National
Weather
Service,
issued
a
rare
warning
to
Tampa
residents
to
exercise
caution,
exercise
caution,
while
Outdoors
as
the
heat
index
that
day
would
make
the
93
degree
temperature
feel
like
110
degrees.
Despite
the
climate
change
alarm,
Bells
going
off
daily
Mobley
has
petitioned
the
city
to
rescind
the
vrb's
decision
and
instead
allow
him
to
destroy
one
of
Tampa's,
most
essential,
valuable
and
beautiful
trees.
AF
A
healthy
50
foot
tall,
Grand
Oak,
located
outside
of
the
buildable
area,
to
build
a
larger
structure
than
the
city
code
allows.
Is
this
the
behavior
of
a
good
corporate
citizen
or
is
it
greed?
The
Builder
asserts
that
removing
this
Grand
Oak
would
allow
the
property
to
be
used
in
the
same
manner
as
other
Lots
in
the
same
size.
In
the
same
area,
however,
other
Lots
in
the
same
size
do
not
contain
a
fell.
Healthy
50-foot,
Grand,
oat
growing
on
them.
AF
Note
that
the
City
Arborist
plan
proposes
an
arson
alternate
design
which
would
preserve
this
old
growth,
Grand
Oak
for
future
generations.
To
enjoy
Mobley
admits
to
purchasing
a
property
with
the
tree
on
it.
Yet,
astonishingly,
claims
that
the
grand
tree
has
created
a
hardship
on
him
and
even
though
the
tree
is
protected
by
the
city's
tree
ordinance,
he
figures
he
can
beat
the
system
and
destroy
the
tree
by
appealing
to
the
city.
AF
Despite
these
serious
consequences.
The
Builder
falsely
asserts
that
by
removing
the
tree,
the
rights
of
others
are
not
compromised
or
injurious
in
any
way
to
the
public,
health,
safety
and
general
welfare.
Mobley
homes
cares
only
for
its
own
selfish
interests,
not
the
good
of
the
community.
Mowgli
claims
that
the
promotes
proposed
variance
is
in
harmony
with
Tampa's
comp
plan.
However,
the
comp
plans-
urban
forestry
section
States
tree
canopy,
is
a
vital
Community,
an
environmental
asset
that
is
appreciated
and
desired
by
residents
in
new
and
established
neighborhoods
alike.
AF
The
protection
and
supplementation
of
this
canopy
tree
canopy
is
a
necessity
in
order
to
sustain
the
resource
and
maintain
the
environmental
benefits
such
as
cooler.
Temperatures
at
the
canopy,
mature
canopy
provides
the
2011
Urban
Forest
analysis
States,
unlike
other
public
infrastructure
components,
properly
planted
and
maintained,
trees
increase
in
value
over
time,
it's
past
time
to
stop
catering
to
the
selfish
desires
of
Builders,
by
not
allowing
them
to
destroy
Tampa's
old
growth,
trees
and
negatively
impact
our
own
health.
AF
Q
Q
S
Good
afternoon
Carol
camisa
palmacia
I've
been
sworn
in
I'm.
Also
a
dog
granny
and
I
walk
in
this
neighborhood
and
enjoy
the
the
shade
the
the
beauty
of
the
tree,
the
brick
streets,
Mr
Mobley,
has
claimed
that
that
his
one
of
his
three
models
that
he
intends
to
put
there
will
not
change
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
looking
at
those
pictures
and
and
my
own
walks
there
I
would
I
would
disagree
with
that
strongly
in
my
dog
walks.
I
I
also
see
other
properties
constantly
being
developed
in
in
South
Tampa.
S
There
are
other
developers
and
I'm
not
here,
to
promote
or
not
any
particular
developer,
but
I
I
see
places
where
trees
are
roped
off
and
tractors
move
around
and
that
kind
of
thing
it
is
possible
to
have
a
reasonable
accommodation.
This
is
a
smaller
lot,
but
that's
not
the
modus
operandi
of
this
particular
developer
and
I.
S
Don't
think
that,
given
the
strength
of
of
the
community's
feelings
and
and
case
that
they're
making
about
saving
this
tree,
someone
pushing
something
a
waiver
through
the
system
just
because
that
their
business
model
doesn't
accommodate
this
particular
lot,
and
this
particular
tree
is,
is
a
good
case
for
a
waiver.
So
I
would
ask
you
to
deny
that
request.
Q
S
Q
AF
E
Q
A
Q
H
Good
afternoon,
Janie
martyr,
development,
coordination
and
I
have
been
sworn
in.
I
would
just
like
to
provide
the
council
with
further
clarification
regarding
some
of
the
things
that
the
legal
representation
for
the
applicant
brought
up.
She
did
mention
she
talks
about
reasonable
use
or
reasonable
reconfiguration
as
the
discussion
that
went
on
during
the
vrb
hearing.
H
F-
and
that
is
the
parameter
within
which
the
board
has
to
decide
whether
or
not
to
approve
a
ground
tree,
and
they
did
talk
about
reasonable
use
as
to
the
fact
that
there
was
a
house
previously
on
this
property,
and
the
applicant
did
say
that
it's
impossible
to
put
us
a
home
on
this
property
without
removing
the
tree,
and
that
was
how
that
conversation
went
in
that
there
was
actually
a
house
and
the
tree
was
there.
H
She
did
talk
about
the
fact
that
and
I
think
it
was
the
expert
that
spoke
about
altering
the
internal
flow
of
the
structure
or
the
proposed
design.
Again,
that
section
says
adversely
altered
so,
if
you're
altering
the
internal
flow,
in
a
way
that
you
cannot
function
in
the
house
without
you
know
in
in
the
way
that
you
have
to
alter
the
house,
then
it's
adversely
altered.
It
doesn't
say
you
cannot
alter
the
flow
of
the
internal
structure.
H
They
did
provide
alternative
side
plans
and
I've
been
doing
the
variances
for
a
little
bit.
I've
seen
private
homeowners
submit
alternative
side
plans
that
show
that
they're
actually
trying
to
preserve
the
tree.
That
is
the
whole
idea
behind
alternative
side
plans
that
you
show
us
that
your
you're
trying
to
see
how
this
tree
can
be
preserved
with
the
site
plans
that
the
applicant
provided
their
legal
presentation
said
that
the
site
plans
show
that
this
tree
cannot
be
saved.
H
Unfortunately,
we
don't
see
a
lot
of
creativity
or
even
the
intent
to
reconfigure,
because
you're,
basically
giving
us
the
same
thing
without
actually
massaging
this
plan
so
and
we
at
stuff.
We
we
take
what
you
give
to
us.
We
can't
say
this:
we
would
reject
it,
because
the
alternative
side
plans
are
your.
You
know,
whatever
you
choose
them
to
make
them,
but
we
see
a
lot
of
clients
where
the
applicant
is
really
not
trying,
because
they
feel
they
don't
want
to
put
an
effort
to
save
the
tree.
But
we
see
this
side
plans.
H
We
allow
the
relocation
of
the
building
sufficient
to
preserve
the
guarantee
for
requested
for
removal
in
the
alternative
side
plans
that
the
applicant
provided,
they
did
not
account
for
those
setback,
reductions
provided
by
the
code.
So
they
are
not
looking
to
see
how
this
could
and
they
could
get
a
lot
of
you
know,
latitude
with
if
they
did
take
consideration
of
those
setback,
reductions
to
save
a
grantry
that
the
code
has
provided.
H
The
other
thing
is
that
they
didn't
mention
the
proposal
by
natural
resources
in
his
proposal
for
how
they
could
massage
this
building.
What
he
did
was
based
on
the
alternative
side
plans
that
they
provided.
That
was
not
his
proposal,
so
when
they
say
that
the
natural
resources
proposal
failed
or
it
would
not
be
feasible,
he
was
just
working
off
of
what
they
had
already
provided
to
us
and
saying
if
this
is
what
you're
looking
at
as
an
alternative,
there
are
ways
to
make
this
work
during
the
hearing.
H
H
That
is
one
of
the
requirements
in
the
section
that
says
in
e
the
cost
of
any
alternative
construction
methods
or
reduction
in
the
use
of
the
proposed
structure.
He
was
not
willing
to
even
consider
alternative
methods,
even
though,
with
a
peer
and
lentil
construction,
you
could
encroach
into
that
protective
radius.
H
So
the
last
thing
I'll
say
regarding
what
they
did
say
is
about
the
zoning
setbacks
in
the
buildable
area
to
say
that
what
they
are
proposing
is
within
the
buildable
area,
correct
you're.
Within
the
setbacks
for
your
zoning,
however,
we
do
have
a
code
that
protects
Grand
trees,
so
our
zoning
setback
does
not
negate
the
fact
that
we
have
a
tree
that
is
protected
by
the
code.
The
code
doesn't
contradict
itself,
so
we
have
setback
reductions
in
order
to
save
the
Grand
Tree.
H
H
So,
yes,
you
are
within
your
your
your
building
envelope
or
what
you
could
potentially
build
on
that
site,
but
we
are
giving
you
allowances
within
the
code
to
move
your
building
in
order
to
save
the
ground
tree,
and
so
those
were
the
comments
that
I
just
had
in
response
to
stuff
that
the
legal
representation
for
the
applicant
had
said
and
to
what
their
expert
witness
have
said.
If
you
have
any
questions,
sure.
I
Have
you
seen
this
report
by
Hill
Ward
Henderson
that
was
provided
accounts.
E
I
So
I
can't
really
ask
you
questions
from
what
I'm
seeing
I'll
ask
the
advocate:
they're
they're
I
guess
their
Chief
complaint
is
saying
that
our
various
review
award
aired
on
the
terminology
or
the
interpretation
of
reasonable
configuration.
I
H
Well,
I
I
kind
of
try
to
address
part
of
that
question
of
reasonable
reconfiguration
and
saying
that
one
of
the
things
or
part
of
what
they
had
had
highlighted
was
the
fact
that,
if
they
were
to,
you
know
change
the
layout
of
what
they're
proposing
it
would.
It
would
affect
the
internal
flow
of
the
building
or
internal
flow
of
the
design
and
I'm
saying
that
what
that
part
of
the
code
says
is
adversely
alter.
H
So,
if
you
have
to
change
this
in
a
way
that
you
cannot
function
within
the
building
or
within
that
design,
let's
say
you
cannot
get
from
your
living
room
to
the
bedroom
or
you
have
you
know
it.
It
affects
that.
Then
it's
adversely
altering
the
internal
flow
of
your
structure
that
we
don't
see
by
what
the
applicant
has
provided
to
us.
Okay,
the
other
thing
that
they
said
we're
not
proposing
any
changes
to
the
height
of
the
structure
or
what
they
are
proposing.
H
Q
Z
I
want
to
address
a
couple
of
things.
First,
that
were
said
by
staff.
You
know
the
applicant
did
not
say
that
actually
I
would
I.
Think
I'll
have
the
applicant
himself
speak
to
the
alternative
construction
I
want
to
clarify
actually
a
few
things
that
were
said
by
everybody.
Mobley
builds
a
lot
of
homes
in
the
area
and
he
frequently
builds
them
around
Grand
trees.
He
does
that.
That
is
a
fact,
and
also
he
is
a
builder.
There
are
contract
purchasers
to
buy
this
home.
They
live
just
down
the
street.
Z
Z
I'm
gonna
have
Mr
pederica
reiterate
how
the
code
applies
here,
but
what
staff
is
saying
is
again
not
applying
the
reasonable
reconfiguration
analysis
of
code.
These
Grand
Tree
Removal
cases
get
approved
a
lot
since
2019..
Z
You
don't
see
them
because
they
typically
are
applied
correctly,
there's
typically
not
as
much
public
comment.
Frankly,
as
there
was
at
this
one,
because
it
is
easier
frankly
to
remove
the
grand
trees
now
under
this
code,
because
it
is
objective
that
was
the
whole
purpose
and
saying
the
trz
is:
what
dictates
everything?
No,
the
trz
is
a
way
to
remove
a
tree
without
having
to
get
a
variance
based
on
a
defined
area
of
the
lot,
and
then
the
code
says
if
the
tree,
which
this
tree
is
eight
inches
outside
of
that.
Z
If
the
tree
is
outside
of
the
tree,
removal,
Zone,
okay,
then
you
have
to
get
a
variance,
and
here
are
the
criteria
that
you
apply
to
get
that
basically
saying
well,
because
you
have
to
ask
for
a
variance
in
order
to
remove
this
treat,
that's
why
it
should
be
denied.
Why
would
we
have
that
at
all?
Why
would
that
process
exist?
The
process
is
there
if
it
cannot
be
removed
because
of
the
trz
and
Miss
Federico.
AB
As
applicable
to
this
lot
in
many
slots
or
many
Lots,
the
reasonable
reconfiguration
criteria
asks
someone
to
take
their
proposed
footprint
either
a
shipped
it
to
the
design,
exception,
setback,
ten
percent
to
the
front
or
the
back.
That
would
be
two
feet:
one
25
to
the
side:
seven
foot
side,
setbacks,
maybe
there's
a
corner
setback
that
applies
barely
off
a
foot
and
a
half.
AB
The
tree
is
currently
located
about
seven
feet
from
the
seven
feet
from
the
property
line
at
the
side
setback
it's
in
direct
conflict
with
the
proposed
building
wall.
The
tree
trunk
is
in
conflict
with
the
building
wall.
AB
Not
the
branches
may
also
be
in
Conflict,
but
we're
if
we're
cutting
off
an
arm
at
your
chest,
the
arms
less
the
point:
there's
no
change
in
stories,
I,
don't
think
that's
really
an
issue
except
that
because
of
the
existing
structure
that
was
there,
the
canopy
had
already
been
elevated
on
that
side,
that's
not
really
the
point,
because
the
trees
is
located
in
the
building
footprint
and
the
building
can't
be
shifted
to
the
design
exception.
AB
The
height
of
the
structure
is
not
relevant
to
this
proposal,
except
if
it
was
reduced,
it
wouldn't
accommodate
the
tree
any
better
and
the
third
portion
of
this
section,
the
internal
flow
and
function
is
not
adversely
altered.
These
modu's
right
in
stressing
that
point
at
is
not
adversely
altered.
We're
stating
it's
a
30
reduction
in
the
house
that
was
proposed
rooms
and
circulation
are
lost
by
preserving
the
root
system
provided
and
in
my
opinion,
that
is
adverse
alteration
to
the
internal
flow
and
function
of
that
proposal.
AB
And
that's
that's
all
we
have
that's
all
the
code
says
in
this
section:
27
284,
2.5,
footnote
five,
one
I
I
one,
two
three
that
and
that's
all
we're
all
we
can
work
from
and
so
I
just
I
appreciate
you
offering
the
opportunity
to
kind
of
make
that
thank.
O
For
Rico
you're,
very
competent
in
knowledge
of
trees
and
everything
else
and
I've
taken
always
your
testimony
of
the
evidence
of
a
professional
which
you
are
counselor,
certainly
represented
by
one
of
the
highest
attorney:
firm,
Phil
ward
in
Henderson
and
I've,
seen
many
of
the
Mobley
homes
built
and
they're.
Very,
very
good.
However,
after
listening
to
all
this
testimony
and
listening
to
everything
that
I've
heard,
no
one's
mentioned
that
it
might
be
a
hardship
on
the
house.
But
it
was
a
hardship
before.
AB
I
don't
know
if
I'm
prepared
to
answer
that.
Okay.
AB
Was
it?
Was
it
a
lot
of
record.
Z
AB
Guess
1908
the
developer
then
set
this
up.
O
Q
E
Q
Thank
you
very
much
all
right.
That
concludes
rebuttal
at
this
time.
Is
there
a
motion
if
there
are
no
other
questions
to
close
the
public
hearings
and
council
member
council
member
Miranda
all
in
favor
aye?
What
is
the
pleasure
of
council?
We
have
three
possible
actions,
affirm,
remander
overturned.
Does
anybody
wish
to
make
a
motion
at
this
time.
V
I
moved
to
affirm
the
vrb's
decision
to
deny
the
variance
requested
in
vrb
22-70
for
the
property
located
at
3122
West
San
Jose
street,
because
the
petition
does
not
meet
the
criterions.
In
section.