Look Ahead 3-28-24

Agenda

There are over 100 items on the agenda this week, so let’s dive right in.

Item 9 struck me as a reminder the role the city plays in the broader Bay Area. A mutual aid agreement with the state for helping other municipalities in the event of disaster.

Item 26 $2 million dollars for solid waste purchase of dumpsters. We need to be paying more for our garbage service city wide and a rate increase is coming. At least a recommendation for a rate increase.

Item 35 relates to Kid Mason Community Center renovation. This is a project without a champion on Council any longer so it feels like it’s been drawn out even longer. I’m glad to see something move forward.

Items 38 and 39 are confirmations for folks appointed by the mayor to the Historic Preservation Commission and there’s no reason to oppose them. But from a pedantic “follow the rules” perspective, they have been active in their roles in one case since last June.

Item 40 is $1 million dollar contract on the consent agenda for a consultant for land development code. My only issue with it is that task 1B is a public website and there isn’t language requiring accessibility. Lots of discussion about “staff” input on design and content, but nothing about requiring web accessibility. And if it’s not spelled out in big black letters in a contract, it’s not going to be much of a concern. The city has a department for Accessibility. They are familiar with web accessibility. We need to put Contract Admin and Legal in a room with them and spell it out in all city contracts.

Items 58 & 59 are carried over from actions last week by the CRA Board relating to work at Union Station. I said in the preview and I’ll repeat, Amtrak is expanding and Tampa is being skipped. Brightline is still vaporware. I’m glad work will be starting to repair and preserve the station.

Item 62 is a second change to the Rome Yard Mixed-Use Development Phasing and Timing Plan. The city entered into the agreement May of 2022. The timing plan was amended April of 2023. Here it is the end of March of 2024 and they are pushing out the plan even further. The backup document in Onbase for the 2023 plan has the timing dates redacted. The new plan has ground breaking for a small parcel December 2024. Then another phase starting the following year through December 2028 with a project completion of December 2030. It would be interesting to understand what happens if Council doesn’t approve the extension.

63 is a second extension to the boondoggle of land swapping going on while the Jackson House falls down before our eyes. It’s shameful.

Items 68-75 is a big win for a more bike-able city. $2,762,136 (roughly) in FDOT grants for:

• Green Artery Segment E — North Boulevard from Sligh Avenue to East Bird Street Bike Lane/Sidewalk project
• E/W Green Spine Cycle Track Phase 3B on North 15th Street from 7th Avenue to 13th Avenue Project
• E/W Green Spine Cycle Track Phase 3C on North 15th Street from 13th Avenue to 21st Avenue Project;

Item 77 is setting the dates for public hearings about a proposed development agreement for property near Channelside. This is just to set the hearing dates, nothing will be presented. It’s also worth noting here the Future Land Use amendment for this project was continued last week. Port property apparently is complicated.

Item 81 is a continuation from a tied vote related to property the city sold to a Jewish congregation to the south of the Marti Colon cemetery for. At issue is parking and access. What was raised at the last hearing and I suspect will be raised even more this week is unmarked graves. Did I mention the city sold the property knowing it’s been used as intended for a cemetery for probably the entire time the city has been incorporated. And the buyers knew this too? That’s just to say this particular application has been emotionally charged and expect more. Unless there’s an absent Council member Thursday.

Item 86 is an alley vacating request. “No longer in public use” but they also state “Used by one abutting property owner.” This Council has not been inclined to vacate alleys that can be used or are being used but each case is judged on it’s merits.

Item 88 is a review hearing for an application that was denied a Special Use permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). From what it looks like in the presentation, it’s a house that’s owned by a property agent that’s been split into two and they are looking for a way to keep it that way.

91 Another staff report about Council salary that staff has no control over. Council either votes to raise their pay or they don’t. I fully support future council members being paid a rate in the same range as their counterparts in other Florida cities the size of the Tampa. I support them giving themselves a salary adjustment now. I don’t support it being a political football for some members of Council. Vote or move on.

92 is the formal vote for the design build contract for the East Tampa Rec center. I believe the votes are there, it should be 7-0. I’ve written about the project before. It’s more than a rec center or a park. I understand the concerns folks have with the process on this one. But I don’t begrudge the mayor taking an idea of fixing up a falling down rec center and turning it into a community altering hub in a part of the city that doesn’t get these kinds of projects. We should improve the process and that’s always at the center of what I’m attempting to do here.

Item 94 relates to a contract and payment to the NAACP. Stipulated that it will be a “verbal” report. As I learn more about early-mid 20th century Tampa history, one piece that I am probably the last person to speak to is the tension between the Urban League and the NAACP and the other parts of the city each are aligned with. Again, last person to speak to it. I sincerely hope this can get resolved in a quick and respectful manner.

Item 99 is about reimbursing former Council member Gudes for legal fees related to a suit brought against him that he ultimately was not found civilly liable for. He’s asking for what looks like $50,000 in legal fees that he feels the city should have provided in the first place. I believe the city legal department, then under a different City Attorney, handled this poorly. I also understand the sensitivity this matter deserves.

100 might not make the cut this week, but it’s regarding codifying the Administrator’s residency requirements. Folks making $150,000-$200,000 a year working for the city, making the kinds of decisions they do, should live in the city.