Weekly post/newsletter is a late getting out, but I’m really happy to say that the migration/site refresh I’ve talked about for over a year is done. When I started this I didn’t know what I wanted to do so I used some one-click options to get up and running quickly. With the best of plans of building it out for my tastes. The site should be a little zippier and gives me the flexibility to keep building. Expect more maps. I’m not a designer, so my goal was to make the site suck less. I think I’ve accomplished that. First and foremost this is a website. A blog. The newsletter is just another way to deliver it.
Looking at the agenda there are 49 items that require a vote by Council. The range from approving the Police Department Mounted Patrol Unit accepting a 6 year-old Clydesdale (valued at $13,000) to a $5.5 million contract for nearly 5 miles of citywide wastewater pipe repair and related work.
First item Council will be voting on is to seat 7 members of the Equal Business Opportunity Advisory Council. The council has been inactive since the pandemic and therefore all the memberships have expired. The council consists of 16 members, 9 appointed by the mayor and the 7 Council appointments. There are 29 applicants and each that attend are, according to the agenda, afforded 3 minutes to speak.
Item 24 is a $1.75 million dollar contract for consulting services for the “Regional Infrastructure Accelerator”. It’s grant funded, but surely government can find a better way to organize and plan regional infrastructure than to hand over millions to consultants.
I rarely touch on the PIPES and wastewater projects, any of the enterprise departments really, but when a contract comes in at $1.8 million LESS anticipated, it should be acknowledged. Item 25 was a contract approved in 2020 for new wastewater lines and everything that comes with it that serviced parts of East Tampa and Macfarlane Park.
Item 26 is to set a public hearing for June 5, as required by state statute to consider “authorizing the City of Tampa to perform Empedrado Street water main replacement using its own services, employees and equipment.” From what I can tell, the city put a project out for bid and all of the bids came in significantly higher than what the city believes they can do it for in house. Since it went out for bid and no bidder was chosen, the state requires a public hearing on it. I suppose to give the bidders an opportunity to argue the city can’t do it that cheap? This vote is just to set the hearing regardless.
Item 27 is the official action for the long awaited changes to the Sidewalk Trust Fund fee. Set in 2010 at $29/linear foot it hasn’t been updated since. This was on the agenda 3-27 and I covered in my review, but due to how the motion was worded, Council erred on the side of more opportunity for public engagement and set a formal motion to make the changes on a future date.
Item 29 is software subscription for $99,744 which I’m not sure why it’s on the agenda. I thought Council had approved upping that threshold to $200,000. If not for items like this, then what for?
Item 30 is the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report as prepared by the Department of Revenue and Finance. If only I had a week on the beach to read through it and provide a summary. If anyone would like to accommodate that scenario, don’t hesitate to reach out.
Item 31 is a final resolution to a scenario that played out before Council in an appeal of a Design Exception last February. The Zoning Administrator approved the Design Exceptions for some new home construction in Seminole Heights. Neighbors appealed, Council agreed with the neighbors, a Code Enforcement Magistrate disagreed with Council, the developer sued the city, and the developer gets what they want after all and will drop their suit. The issue at hand was the build to line and setbacks. Seminole Heights overlay district requires certain setbacks. However when you add in empty lots and do a block average of setbacks, things get weird. Someone will argue this is what will be fixed in the land development code rewrite but in this case, I believe human error was at the root of the issue.
Items 33-36 are development agreements between the city and private developers to build infill housing. The city owns the property, a developer builds a home on it that can be afforded by a household making UP TO 140% of the median income, which is give or take a few grand, $100,000. The example provided to me by staff when I inquired about a similar project a few years ago was 2 starting teachers (Hillsborough County teachers start at $48,000.) A Tampa police officer starts at $72,000 a year. Those are the kinds of salaries these single family homes are targeted towards. They also come with a 30 year string so they can’t be flipped in a couple of years at market price.
I can’t exactly explain item 44 however beyond that it’s contract for $272,292 using SHIP funds for a replacement home. I was unaware of such a program in the city, but would interested to learn more.
Item 48 is something I hope the city considers expanding and that is the e-bike voucher program. $10,000 from parking revenue is a drop in the bucket we could double without anyone missing it.
Beyond that there will be several in person staff reports but generally a light week for Easter.
