My Preview
Agenda
Morning Session on YouTube
Afternoon Sesson on Youtube

A delayed wrap-up as I mentioned in the newsletter does give me a chance to point out that there are now “minutes” for meetings. Previously there was a different style of recording the meeting. You can’t hyperlink to the minutes, but if you visit a past agenda item there are buttons under the blue menu bar for agenda and minutes. Minutes aren’t posted immediately after a meeting, it seems it takes a couple of business days for them to post. Note this does not provide any comment on the substance of any agenda item beyond any votes or further action taken, i.e. bring back on X date in the future, or receive and file supporting documents. That’s the part I try to fill in.

There were several items on the consent agenda pulled by Council member Carlson. While myself and others bring attention to numerous items on the agenda, occasionally one gets brought up. Item 31, a $439,000 CCTV for the wastewater department, item 33 a $559,000 Vac-Con Sewer Cleaner vehicle also for wastewater, and Item 48 was one I’ve mentioned that’s had opposition in how we sub-contract work. Council member Carlson voted against this item. I guess that means he was totally OK with the fleet of 30 4×4 F-150s for TPD.

Among the public hearings, item 81 was the most contentious with second reading failing with a 3-3 vote. By rule it continued until next available meeting which will be 3-28-24. Questions were raised about the possibility of and concerns with unmarked graves which relate to a specific waiver requested in the Planned Development site plan. Based on public testimony at the second reading, I suspect the issue of unmarked graves to be raised even further and questions asked about the city selling this land in the first place.

Item 85 was first reading of community development agreement for the University Park project across from USF now with USF’s blessing. I remarked in a prior review of this item that as long as the items addressed by USF were taken care of it seemed like a good plan.

Item 88 “East Tampa Rec” I use quotes because that’s how it is presented in the agenda and I do not know if that’s going to be the final name of the development. This was a preliminary conversation before Council to give them and the public plenty of time to ask questions and get answers before a formal vote on the 28th. The item starts here is roughly 2.5 hours long. This was an item approved in 2022 for the FY2023 budget and we are finally at the build it phase. $35 million was approved for bonding and there’s a reimbursement resolution in place for that amount. This contract is for $35 million, all told with land acquisition the project will be $41 million, before interest. I think it’s unfortunate a project of this magnitude is in the budget under Parks and Recreation because it is much more than that. There is no indication this project will not go forward as designed and budgeted at the final vote.

Item 92 was something I missed during the preview, I tend to not wade into enterprise funds and projects too much, but someone asked me my opinion of it so I took a look. A reminder PIPES is a once in 100 years project the city has neglected the last 100. Billions with a B in dollars. All ambitiously laid out at the start of the mayor’s tenure. So far, it’s been a success. Less stories of roads closed due to water main breaks. But it’s also a decades long project that was budgeted pre-pandemic. So it’s a little more than half a billion off. As I told the person who asked my opinion, I’ve seen worse in the private sector and truthfully, it’s the private sector who are the cause of the increase in costs. The good news is these issues are down the road, we are on schedule and have funding, but a future mayor and Council will be tasked with extending the bonding or raising rates to pay for it. The presentation is well done and detailed. If large municipal infrastructure projects are your thing, give it watch.

Item 93 was a discussion about downtown, parking and special events. Not much time was spent discussing alternative transportation, leveraging the Ybor garages and the street car and better communication. I made the fatal mistake this past Saturday going on auto-pilot to my fishing hole and finding myself at Nebraska and Cass before I realized the mistake I had made. I was able to partially avoid the nightmare but beyond communications, I can attest the timing for lights is poor.

Item 94 is something I oppose and would love to see it go away. City Council expanding parking mandates on single family homes while reducing them for multifamily makes zero sense to me. Forcing builders to make bigger garages simply gives them ammo for setback variance requests to continue building McMansions to the lot line. Enforce parking restrictions in residential neighborhoods if a household can’t contain its fleet of vehicles.

Item 97 gets to the heart of process, something I have been critical of. I understand the intent of the motion, that if there aren’t sufficient backup materials for an agenda item prior to the meeting, the item should automatically be continued. The problem here is there’s a lot of difference between staff reports and items Council is taking official action on. From where I sit, writing these updates and previews, my entire focus is to bring awareness before Council takes action on an item. When public input is the most valuable. Once they vote to approve something, there’s less recourse for the public. So I agree, anything Council is voting on the upcoming week, all relevant materials and data should be attached to the agenda item when it’s uploaded Friday afternoon. If there is missing data, at the minimum a memo acknowledging what is missing and when it will be uploaded should be included. But that’s for formal action. A staff report is just that. If a Council member makes a motion “request staff to report to Council on X date about problem Y”, that’s ambiguous language. What does “report to Council” mean? Show up and speak to the issue? Write a written report but no-show up? Both? I think Council needs to clearer in their language when making the motions, respect the time necessary to accomplish the task and then remember it’s a report and if new information becomes available closer to the day of the meeting they aren’t voting on anything. But again, for anything that requires a Council vote, all relevant data and information should be included when the draft agenda is published.

Finally, under new business, the names of the finalists for the new Council Budget Analyst were presented. A Special Call meeting was set for April 8th for Council to do final interviews and select their choice. This is huge milestone and I hope the process doesn’t scare anyone off. It’s a first of a kind role with the city done in the public. When the budget process started last year, I emailed City Council about 2 items. This position and a chief data officer. It was an idea championed by Council member Carlson and moved forward this year by Council member Clendenin. I greatly appreciate Council members Clendenin for shepherding this process and getting Council to this point. We as a community will benefit greatly as this role is filled and Council are able to have an independent financial expert to help them understand the budget and the ramifications of their votes. We as a city entrust our Council to own the budget. This position has been in the Charter. It was time. Which ever candidate is chosen, they will immediately be of help and dare I say we have a better budget process this year, but that’s putting a lot on one person in a role that’s never existed before. I have always been eyeing FY26 and going forward when this role will really shine.

There are several other items Council has set to put on future agendas, including one from Council member Carlson about disclosing other contractor prices when using piggyback contracts. I believe that is a way to ask questions about vehicle purchases without specifying. I’m less concerned if we can save a few bucks buying Chevy instead of Ford than there being a business case for the purchase in the first place. See the whole discussion about continuing agenda items for lack of support material. TPD asks, Council gives. But I digress. Have a great week.