Agenda

Out of the gate before public comment item 1 is a much anticipated update on the Jackson House. Hopefully this is a good update and all the I’s dotted and t’s crossed with the easement so work can begin on the structure. I think it would be a symbolic win if the community can disassemble the building before Mother Nature. Symbolic because it is a travesty the building was allowed to reach the condition it is in.

Item 2 was a request from Council member Henderson for the Citizen Budget Advisory Committee to present some scenarios how Council could increase their salaries this fiscal year. I have been very consistent in advocating for a more appropriate salary for Council members with an expectation that this isn’t a once a week responsibility. It should not be a requirement that a Council person be independently wealthy or struggle to pay their bills.

Consent Agenda

Item 5 is a weird one for me. We are paying someone $380,000 to host a web based platform to order uniforms for TPD so we can then give them more money for the actual uniforms. I would think that cost would be baked into the retailer/wholesaler costs not an added layer on top.

By comparison, item 27 is for a SaaS cloud product for HR for $160,000 annually. Item 29 is $120,000 uniform rental services for other departments. That’s still $100,000 less than just the platform for TPD uniforms. (Ok, it comes with an on-site tailor for TPD. I bet the folks working out at Picnic Island park would like a tailor for their uniforms too.)

Item 6 is another retirement and adoption of TPD canine. Oakley. Last year when I saw I one I commented to Council that we should celebrate a good dog and Council member Hurtak did. That dog was among other things a bomb sniffer for floats at Gasparilla. Was a good reminder of some of the things TPD does to keep people safe that we don’t think about. I’m sure Oakley served the city well too and hope they get lots of treats.

item 41 doesn’t explain why the project ran 10% over approved. Million dollar contract and now asking for another $100,000.

Public Hearings

Item 43 Memorial Park Cemetery was discussed at last week’s CRA meeting (read the wrap-up) and this week presented for first reading is an ordinance to recognize the cemetery as a local historic landmark. I would expect a robust discussion from the public on wanting more than a symbolic designation after hearing the comments last week. And rightfully so. There will be a community cleanup at the cemetery this Saturday.

Items 45 and 46 are second readings for land use cases. 45 had two votes against at first reading but I don’t expect these to be time consuming.

Speaking of the wrap-up, there were 2 projects where the developer went out of their way to save/protect grand trees. Item 47 is the opposite. The applicant applied for and were approved by the Variance Review Board to remove 2 specimen live oaks. This is an appeal of that decision arguing the VRB did not properly apply the standards by which they are to make their decision. Particularly in how to apply the alternate design standard for tree preservation. If I was a betting man, I would put money that Council overturns the VRB decision. I also hope we look at how we can put more constraint on the VRB when it comes to grand trees. I think they should be applying a very strict standard knowing the applicant has an appeal process.

Item 48 is a continued item due to a 3-3 vote. This was also a VRB review where the applicant is asking for their windows to be signs, not windows.

Items 49 & 50 are related to the Development Agreement surrounding the University Park project across from USF. This is an item that has been before Council and continued. My top question is whether this memo from the USF representative has been addressed in the site plan. “Design for walkable blocks instead of a large suburban apartment complex…Retain trees and provide a regulating tree line at the sidewalks to support safety, comfort, scale, and sustained tree canopy.”

Staff Reports

Item 52 was continued from a couple of weeks ago as part of accepting and FDOT grant for the Hyde Park storm relief project. I’ve given up hoping folks can pick more appropriate times to ask questions about projects so who knows what this turns into.

A $7,400,000 price tag gets item 53 out of the consent agenda. Stormwater/wasterwater projects have jaw dropping costs but it’s always a good reminder these are once in a generation projects that folks will be paying for decades to come.

Item 55 is the public disclosure of a settlement agreement Council was briefed on a few weeks back in private session. Here’s a NY Times story covering the overturning of the conviction and the coverage from the Innocence Project who helped Mr. Duboise.

items 57-58 are items that have been continued and discussed and continued and discussed but there is a new memo from Chief Tripp. Tl;dr we average 12 minute response times which is within best practices. We’ve approved or already spent a ton of money to improve those times including waiting on a number of rescue vehicles and in the process of selecting a new computer aided dispatch system.

Item 59 I’m done speaking to the reimbursement resolution and TFR budget. I don’t believe anything I’ve written has shed any light or provided clarity. I fear if anything I’ve done the opposite. I will also note I believe I copied some wrong information for station 24. There is actually $1.6 million in FY24 budget. I had that slated for next year. FY25 has $16M in the 5 year CIP. I also want to reiterate I’ve never questioned any of the spending. My only goal is to understand the process and for the city to be transparent in its execution.

If item 61 finally makes it before Council, know it’s been a long time in the works. The initial motion on this subject was in September of 2022. Staff are providing a number of recommendations to improve the code and enforcement of parking lots, specifically in Ybor. Needless to say there are a lot of objections from the business community and demands from the neighborhood to address the issues. This is one I’d trust the staff, particularly Abbey Feeley and accept the recommendations of the Admin and move these forward.

Item 62 needs to just be implemented. Pick a starting service fee rate and let’s stop paying credit card transaction fees for users. Potential $4 million a year savings, though not all general funds.

Item 63 &64 is a positive move in the direction of accountability in relation to development agreements. I suspect Council will approve this and move it forward.

Item 65 is a continuation of the discussion about proposed changes to the comprehensive plan. I touched on this in the preview for 1-25 agenda. I also addressed this in a broader context of equity and reconciliation in the wrap-up. The fine folks at THAN also hosted an in-depth discussion last week and recording is available on Youtube.