Welcome to the New Year. I hope the holiday break was everything you wanted it to be.

Council opens the new year with a 67 item agenda. 51 of those require a vote. A majority of those are consent agenda items and second readings for land use cases.

But before I get into the agenda, I wanted to speak to a question I was asked when I appeared on WMNF last month. I was invited to join The Skinny (you can listen to a replay in the On Demand section—12-20-24 make sure to listen to the second half at least where Council member Hurtak talks fare-free Route 1) to talk about what I’m doing with the site and the decline of local coverage. I was asked about how I balance my personal opinions as a Tampa native and life long resident who cares about their home town. And it’s something I’ve struggled with from the beginning. I try to look at each item objectively but often have questions. The lack of answers leads to skepticism and more questions. But I do try to at least keep perspective and limit the hills I’m willing to die on. I do want to be clear though—I do not have an agenda other than wanting more people to be aware of what is going on with their city. When issues truly resonate with me on a personal level, I share my thoughts with Council or the appropriate department. And that’s what I encourage everyone to do. That doesn’t have to mean it is something you disagree with. Do not underestimate the power of a positive note in support of a project.

On that note, here’s my deep dive into the agenda. Which is one of the guardrails I’ve set for myself. Focusing on what is before Council this week and more specifically, what they voting on.

Last meeting, there were several approvals for disbursement of funds from the social action & arts fund, however one group, Community Stepping Stones was not. Several people spoke at public comment urging the administration to get this on the agenda as they had been told it would be on before the end of the year. Good news is it is on this week’s agenda along with several other non-profits. We need to find a balance between due diligence and accountability versus making a commitment during the budget process. Cash flow is real, especially for small non-profits.

Item 25 are contracts to outsource building inspections for $710,000. Nothing wrong with that but it does bring up the question of our fee structure. A lot have not been updated in decades. See the discussions later around real cost of sidewalks vs what we charge for the in lieu fees for sidewalks.

Item 29 is an audit of “Mobility – Bridges and Pump Station Maintenance and Operations” looking at 2021-2024. It’s not great. “Due to retirement, there is a lack of expertise in performing required electrical, mechanical, and control system tasks for the pump stations.” That’s poor management. Ensuring that staff is trained and prepared to step up is job one. Yet here’s management’s response to the audit

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE: Management would like to make a slight modification to the Statement of Condition. We feel that we are in fact performing technical maintenance as required but at a basic level. Management agrees with the rest of the assessment and recommendation. The division has been aware of the skills gap it is currently facing. Through organizational adjustments and recruitment, the division has tried to address these concerns, however, these efforts have not been successful. While the division attempts to train and develop the skill sets necessary for maintaining and operating the stormwater pump stations
properly, the division will use specialty contractors to supplement internal efforts.

How much of the flooding from Milton was due to this “basic level” of maintenance? Maybe none but it needs to be part of the wholistic discussion of “resilience”.

Conversely item 30 is an audit for “Revenue and Finance – Accounts Payable” that is exactly what you want to read. The only knock is that there are duplicate vendors in Oracle.

Item 37 appears to be a major milestone for the Gas Worx project — approval of the Infrastructure Improvements Agreement. Among other things, this project will bring 325 affordable housing units to the area.

Among the second readings the one I’ll be watching is item 44 & 45. I wrote about it in the December 12th wrap up–items 1 &2. The way the developer represented the Tampa Heights Civic Association’s endorsement which I believe was for the original design (Ridgewood Park folks approved of the original design too!) struck a nerve with me. I felt the Ridgewood Park neighbors laid out legitimate concerns with the new plan of using an alley as an entrance well and think their objections should be given more consideration.

Item 51 is the second reading for the large scale development at the corner of Florida Ave and Columbus. After a continuance at the original first reading, changes were made that satisfied most of the community and it passed 5-2 (Carlson & Viera no). I wouldn’t anticipate any new objections but it’s a New Year.

Items 52 and 53 are somewhat of a compromise between Council and the admin. Currently anything over $100,000 has to get Council approval. This would raise the threshold to $200,000 with the caveat that “work orders may not be issued to a single provider of professional services exceeding $200,000 in the aggregate per fiscal year without City Council approval.” So the city couldn’t do 5 $199,999 contracts to one firm to bypass Council oversight. There does need to be some kind of public disclosure of these contracts even if they do not require Council approval.

Item 54 is reserved for Administration Updates. I would not be surprised if the topic of Reserve Police officers isn’t discussed in light of the recent officer involved shooting that occurred in Channelside last weekend. As the TB Times article notes, Reserve officers do not wear body cams due to cost. Council approved at their last meeting a 10 year, $50 million contract with the company that provides the body worn cameras and related storage. I believe they are also consolidating other technologies for evidence gathering but the bulk of the contract I believe is for cameras. Yet we still can’t equip every armed officer that directly interacts with the public? The contract passed 7-0 without discussion. At least I never heard any. It was on the consent agenda on the 5th but I do not recall it being moved or discussed then either.

The remainder of the agenda is staff reports. Some in person, some written. Item 57 is tangentially related to item 36 in that they relate to youth workforce development. Item 57 is a request for an update on the Summer Youth Employment program in East Tampa. The memo submitted notes the city’s summer youth employment program is city wide and only accommodates 36 teens (16-19 years old). Item 36 is an $85,0000 contract with Corporation to Develop Communities (CDC) to “to provide development, academic achievement, and employability services to participants ages 13 through 21 living in low to moderate-income communities within the City of Tampa.” The CDC primarily operates in East Tampa but this program isn’t directed specifically to East Tampa.

Items 61 & 62 relate to how the city is/can help folks affected by flooding from Milton. The memo for 62 mentions a program that will have $3 million available with a threshold of 140% household median income. Staff anticipates bringing the agreement forward in 2 weeks with a program launch “early February.”

Item 64 has no backup materials however it is a request for staff to present language to update the in lieu fee to reflect the actual cost of building sidewalks. This has been a discussion for over a year and should be moving forward. The original motion was July 18, 2024. There are a couple of related items about what has been completed with the in lieu fees and actual costs. One project listed broke down to $122.72/linear foot.

Finally, item 60 will be a discussion about the West Riverwalk project. This project was approved by Council but several members have hinted they are having buyers remorse. Expect a lively conversation.

Next week Council sits as the CRA for the morning session with land use hearings that evening. Also a reminder, Council will be having a special call meeting the evening of January 28th to once again re-hear a proposed redevelopment at Rodeph Shalom synagogue on Bayshore. Twice Council has denied their application. Somehow they have managed to convince staff to bring it back before Council without waiting the full year each time. There was strong public opposition due to the waivers being requested, especially from the Bayshore Garden Club. It will be interesting to see what waivers they are still requesting.