I opened last week’s post noting there would be an update to Council from the Jackson House Foundation on the status of the home. I said I hoped we’d get more answers than questions and I don’t think that happened. As such, I’ve written a separate post about the Jackson House for those that might not be familiar with it or what the issue is including current status. I also have an opinion.

Clarification was provided as to why the CRA/Gas Worx CDD interlocal agreement was continued from the CRA agenda and passed without much discussion beyond Council member Carlson—who had requested a few minor changes related to wording and the developer, thus the continuance—explaining his vote in that this is a more transparent process than what was used for Channelside.

The contract to purchase the land on E. Hillsborough Ave for Tampa Fire Rescue fleet maintenance & supply relocation was approved on consent.

What wasn’t approved on consent was an item I flagged last week, item 49 The UNITE: Ashley Drive project. The item was pulled for discussion as I wasn’t the only person who noted it. A memo was circulated to Council from their budget analyst. I was not mistaken, when originally presented to Council, it was much smaller with the majority of the cost covered by the federal grant. Somewhere between then and last week it more than doubled in size (odd how often that happens). The item was continued to offer Mobility an opportunity to explain the increase but if they had voted Thursday it would have failed.

There were several other budget related items that were pulled for discussion not so much as to vote against them, more to start a conversation about the budget. Which gets us to this week and the workshop scheduled for Thursday morning. We are starting the second quarter of the fiscal year, books have been closed out on FY24, and there is approximately $23 million in unallocated general funds. This discussion will be item 3.

Item 2 is the Bi-Annual Capital Improvement Project Report which has somehow morphed into what the administration calls the “Great 8” report. Ironically the aforementioned Ashley Dr project is included in the report. These reports are fluff. I’ve been watching them for 4 years. Prior votes get rehashed but they are only a handful of projects, some of which were originally approved in the budget 3-4 years ago. If I was putting on my budget hawk hat, I would be requiring a more comprehensive report on the status of all capital improvement projects. There are a couple of online tools for viewing CIP projects that are less than user friendly and we discovered during the last budget process things don’t match what’s in the budget. One place has one thing, another has something else. Or a project is missing from one to the other. One of the items pulled last week was solar for a rec center. $300,000 as part of a much larger project that included a new HVAC system. Council debated whether that was the best way to use limit resources for a community space. I argued during the budget process last year we should be using the Parks & Rec Master Plan we paid so much for. Map out the CIP for parks & rec so we know we are using objective criteria. The projects should be spelled out and not in big buckets. Debate which projects are prioritized during the budget process. There isn’t a single Parks & Rec project in the “Great 8” unless you try and count the West Riverwalk.

Following that up will be a presentation and discussion about bonding capacity.

The last item from the workshop that I’ll mention is the final item, a discussion about Council salary beginning with the next Council in 2027. When Council voted to adjust their salaries for the current Council, there was disagreement on how much and how to provide for adjustments for future Councils. Council does get cost of living adjustments (assuming other salaried employees are approved in the budget) but there was still debate as to whether the adjustment was sufficient. The city uses area medium income as a benchmark for qualifying for affordable housing. I would like it if someone could do the job of Council member full time without qualifying for affordable housing.

Finally Council will be sitting for 9 rezoning applications Thursday evening. One item I know had a lot of neighborhood opposition when it appeared before the Architectural Review Commission earlier this month. Item 5, Rez-24-104. It was before the ARC because it’s a property that was recently added to the Hyde Park historic district as part of the remaining piece of Dobyville. I found the presentation from staff and the applicant compelling clearly showing that in 1929 there was a modest single family home on the lot, the current contributing structure was built after, and the two addresses existed into the late 80s at least. Had what was left of Dobyville been included in the local historic district in the first place that home might still exist. The applicant is proposing building a modest shotgun home in its place and maintaining the footprint on the existing contributing structure. Some who spoke in opposition suggested the applicant could just add on to the existent structure but as a commissioner noted, doing so and building a larger foot print wouldn’t be in keeping with the historic fabric of Dobyville. The ARC voted unanimously to recommend to Council the approval of the rezoning. Staff also finds the application consistent.

There are a couple of applications on the agenda staff doesn’t find consistent including item 8 a rezoning on North A St. That application includes the request for waivers including for removal of a 42” B7 live oak (A is best, the numbers are more technical regarding current status). Though I’m never sure when the tree advocates will show up. The Variance Review Board recently approved the removal of a similar tree to provide for parking for a business with no opposition. Maybe neighborhood has more to do with it than the trees.

I won’t go through the rest, but check the map on the agenda for more details