I found I had more words to say about last week’s evening rezoning meeting than I expected so I moved it to a Wrap Up post. But before I get into that I wanted to touch on something that’s bothered me in the past and I noticed again last week. There’s this game that developers and their agents (one in particular) use this line, “By right, we could build X units. We are only proposing Y.” Which is to say based on the future land use designation, if the developer were to follow the code—set backs, height restrictions, green space and parking—the amount of space left over that can be developed. Generally speaking that breaks down to 1200 square feet “a unit”. But the developer leaves that part out. If “by right” you can build 5 units, that’s going to be roughly 6000 sq ft. But if you are building 3 2,200 sq ft townhomes, are you really building less density? Often the size of the townhomes are even bigger and the apples to oranges comparison worse. We should actually want 5 1200 sq ft units instead of 3 big ones if we are trying to increase housing. What is the point otherwise? Appease some NIMBY neighbors? But I digress.
For the final agenda of 2024 there are 97 items of which 82 require Council action, including 13 items (65-77) up for second reading, most of which are alcoholic beverage sales applications.
A majority of items approved every week are on consent. Approved in bulk with no discussion. If you ever want to understand how we have a nearly $2 billion budget, just read through any given week’s consent agenda and add up the items. $2m here, $2m there for ongoing wastewater projects. $2m here for dumpsters, $1m there for water meter reading. Half a million for sod. They are all mostly benign and necessary but it is staggering to me see tens of millions of dollars approved with no discussion yet I’ve watched Council debate an hour over a $5,000 grant. And speaking of, there are numerous items scattered through the consent agenda this week for grants ranging from $50,000 to $200,000. These were all part of the FY25 budget. I wouldn’t be surprised if some are discussed again Thursday.
Item 39 is on the consent agenda and was brought up during new business Thursday evening. Council member Viera is amending Resolution No. 2024-344, the resolution that created the Racial Reconciliation Committee to reflect their report to be presented in August of 2025 instead of February. I knew there was no way they could realistically put together a committee, have time to seriously discuss the issues and present a report with actionable items in the original timeframe. I publicly questioned the authenticity of the gesture for that reason. I’m glad the committee asked for more time and they are getting it.
I’m not surprised about the conclusions of the audit related to hardware in IT for item 40. I am a fan of Tech and Innovation and recognize it’s a department that historically has been underfunded with high expectations. But we need a Master Plan along the lines of what was done with Parks & Rec. And then followed through with. Unlike what is happening with Parks and Rec.
If affordable housing is your interest, there are at least 4 items (53-56) on the consent agenda. One, a $3.1 million loan through the SHIP program (which if I recall is tightly controlled state funding) to assist in building a 10 unit affordable townhome development near 22nd St and Columbus. The other 3 are “the development, construction, and sale/ rental of such property for use as an affordable single-family attached or single-family detached residential dwelling unit(s) by an income-qualified buyer or renter as part of the City’s Infill III Program.” Basically the city gives the developer the land and then the developer agrees to build it at a price point that meets certain income criteria. Which is worth questioning on these agreements. These stipulate “at or below 140% of the Area Median Income (AMI)” for “a period of thirty (30) years.” Current median household income for Tampa is $71,000. 140% is $100,000. Starting salary for teachers in Hillsborough County is $48,000. A married couple of starting teachers was the example used of who these homes and prices were targeted towards when I asked about this on a previous project. The 30 year stipulation prevents a build and flip scenario. Absent the Land Trust, there isn’t much that can be done beyond the 30 years. That said, these are city owned lots and there should have been consideration for some of the alternative housing methods the Mayor originally committed to at the start of her term.
Items 57 & 58 are good news. A $3 million grant from the state to go towards restoration of the Bermuda Blvd seawall in Palmetto Beach. I’ll always miss the crab shacks that used to line that road.
Also filed under good news are items 62 & 63. Segments D & E of the green artery. D is Sulphur Springs Park to 22nd St Park and E is Boulevard from Sligh to Bird. I was in Ybor recently admiring the work on 15th going north. Truly protected bike lanes are a game changer.
Item 79 I mentioned two weeks ago. A 10 year $50 million contract with Axon, the maker of the technology behind body worn cameras. They’ve expanded their suite of services to include drones and video storage and it seems the city is buying the full suite of tools. Some elements may replace other platforms currently used by TPD. I assumed it passed on consent, but I guess because of the size of the contract and previous Council rules, it requires being on the agenda twice with second appearance being the vote.
Item 80 is another item continued from the 5th. A $1.5 million contract for consulting services related to the Potable Water Master Plan Update. If you want to start your holiday drinking early, take a shot every time you hear “toilet to tap” during the discussion of this item.
Much like item 79, items 80 and 81 were referenced on 12/5. The relocation of the Solid Waste facilities. I even thought there was a vote. Either way, it’s being brought back for final final approval.
Item 83 is a contract for a new Computer Aided Dispatch platform for Tampa Fire Rescue in the amount of $3.9 million. This has been in the budget and kicked around for one reason or another for years so it’s good to see they’ve settled on something. It has been an excuse for a myriad of other questions over that period.
Items 88 – 97 are all staff reports, some written, some in person. The ones I will have my eye on the closest are 92 and 93. They are big picture budget related items looking at the relation between the adopted and the preliminary closing of FY24 budget. How did we do in projections of revenue and expenses? Where did unexpected revenue come from and where did it go? Those are the types of questions I think we’ll better be able to answer after this report.
Beyond that, I always encourage folks to read through the agenda and dig deeper into the supporting documents for any items that catch your interest. Then share your thoughts with Council or the staff associated with the item. Have a good holiday break and see you back after the New Year.
Leave a Reply