Lately I’ve been trying to write these agenda previews in a more formal tone and leave the “I” on the cutting room floor. And that will return when we get back to the regular agenda next month. If you’ll indulge me this one last time I figured since this is a workshop agenda (which I used to gloss over due to time and lack of formal votes) for the morning and for the evening land use it’s split between future land use (FLU) map amendments and alcohol use applications. The FLU items at time of review only have a transmittal letter for backup materials noting the request and what planning commission voted. I’m going to avoid weighing in without the normal planning commission packet reports. I’ll assume their staff will get the additional documents into the clerk before Thursday’s hearings. Likewise I’ll avoid the AB sales debates this week except to ponder the Venn diagram of people opposing the item on this week’s agenda for Davis Islands but supported the Mirasol development.

The exception is item 1 on the evening agenda as requested by Council Chair Alan Clendenin at the close of last week’s meeting. One more time—this was a decision approved by council after a motion from the chair in consultation with the admin. I don’t say that because I find any issue, I say that to make clear this wasn’t sprung on council. But before we get into that item, we need to go back to the morning workshop agenda.

As part of the request to place item 1 on the evening agenda, agenda item 1 on the workshop was renamed from the “Great 8” Capital Project Update to the South Howard Flood Relief Project Presentation.

This is where I remind folks that for workshops, council does not provide for general public comment. Rather, members of the public are allowed to speak to each agenda item, generally after staff have presented and council have had an opportunity to ask questions (though council make their own rules and the order is subject to their preference.) What we will learn is the estimated cost—$98 million. $35 million more than what was approved in the budget…in September of 2021 as part of the FY22 budget. Of the $64.5 million approved, $39 million was slated to come from stormwater improvement fees. $10 million is coming from state, tentatively $10 million from Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority (THEA) and $4.5 million from Water Dept as part of PIPES element in the project.

As I noted when the state grant was back up for a vote to open the month, the administration is now saying this project is designed for a 100 year storm. All previous discussions stated a 5 year storm level of service.

Early on one of the selling points of this project was the work that would be done above ground to improve Howard Ave. Those details have been scant with only conceptual drawings done prior to the design award, this week’s slide presentation included.

If you’re confused what the debates or arguments are, it comes down to 3 sides:

• Budget hawks who do not believe the project will solve the flooding problems and that the stormwater improvement fees could be better spent in other parts of the city with smaller, targeted projects for the like Palma Ceia Pines and Parkland Estates that were most impacted by Milton (or an average climate change influenced July thunderstorm.)
• Businesses along Howard Ave who believe construction of this project will have more negative economic impact on them than the cost of stormwater flooding over the next 30 years. They also contend there are alternative designs to box culverts down Howard Ave that would accomplish the same thing. City staff disagree and say they’ve explored all of the alternatives including ones proposed by the business community.
• everyone else

How much this presentation will shift anyone in the 2 opposition camps is hard to predict. Certainly when the final route was designed to use Swann to Howard and avoid disrupting the neighborhoods (and trees) to the south more folks removed their opposition. I do believe if the broadening of scope—larger footprint of project’s effect, 100 year rain event—is confirmed by outside engineers, it can change minds.

Now this is where I remind people council do not normally take final action during a workshop (technically they can). Which gets us back to item 1 on the evening agenda. That item is a request to move $21.5 million within the Stormwater Bond Series 2023 Fund to the South Howard Flood Relief and Streetscape Project. That would still leave a $11.5 million funding gap. The source of the $21.5 million will be another issue of debate. “Why is there that much money left over from a bonding round for the MacDill 48 project?” Valid questions and concerns about the management of the stormwater improvement fees.

So I am curious if council intends to take public comment for the budget amendment in item 1 of the evening agenda. Like a workshop, there is no general public comment period for evening meetings. The argument can be made because there’s a public workshop just for that topic in the morning there wouldn’t be a need to allow additional comments. But why not just vote during the workshop then?

I’ll end with saying that moving the funds in the budget from one closed out project to one in the pipeline doesn’t actually spend a dollar. It’s an accounting move, albeit one indicating where things are going. Until there’s a contract with a guaranteed maximum price (GMP), the only funds spent on this project have been the $7.7 million for design. Technically there’s one last bite at the apple.

With council having a full evening agenda and the level of discussion and public input expected for item 1, I have my doubts they will get to the remaining items on the workshop agenda.

• Item 2 is for a discussion around housing for people with disabilities.
• Item 3 is a discussion about pausing code violations during permitting processes. I’ve shared my thoughts about code enforcement and compliance. There also seems to be some questions about the aggressiveness of the city to issue liens which does need some clarification.
• Item 4 is the hot potato of what to set council’s salary at. Which if you look at the $74,500 they are currently approved at and the area median income (AMI) is, you’ll find they are pretty close. If we want a city council that are fully engaged and treat this like the full time job that it is, they should be afforded a reasonable salary and not rely on only the wealthy to afford to run. Every “affordable” housing discussion centers around AMI so it’s a common benchmark. Remove any language about cost of living adjustments and just index annual salary to the same AMI data used for housing.
• Item 5 was a request to report on the pension fund and mention of pension debt during budget discussions. The CFO is requesting to roll that discussion into an already scheduled presentation on debt at the February 26 workshop.

Council will next meet for a single regular agenda on February 5th.