Clearly everyone will be talking about the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with the Rays this week but there are 68 other items on the agenda.

MOU

First, to clarify, there’s a “special call workshop” also scheduled for The CRA on Thursday. The sole purpose for that is if council as body approves the MOU, they can then gavel out as the Tampa City Council and gavel in as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Board and also vote to approve. Assuming no one votes yes a council member and no as a CRA Board member. But they are two different bodies with different rules and priorities. In theory.

And with 68 other items on the agenda, I opted to write a separate piece on the MOU. But the key point I want to make is this — the vote is non-binding.

As I see it 3 ways a council member can vote:

• No, fully against the project and using public funds in any way to develop it.
• Yes, fully support the project using public funds in the argument of economic impact that will be protected by the community benefits agreement. (The MOU calls the CBA a “voluntary commitment” by the Rays.)
• Yes, politically expedient thing to do knowing there will be future votes where all of the Rays’ cards have to be on the table and maybe less of a spotlight; make a final decision then.

The kicker is one of the terms of the MOU is that the Community Investment Tax (CIT) project list must be modified to include the stadium as a public facility. I think there’s a legitimate argument against using CIT funds if a future baseball stadium was explicitly left off the CIT referendum—it was a question asked prior to the city council vote on approving the list and putting it before the voters. If that document needs to be modified in such a manner that it requires spelling out the contribution for a new stadium, that smacks of ignoring the will of the voters. Certainly a lawyer can argue technically the ability to modify the list was always there but they’ll not be facing an election when making that argument.

And all of this is assuming the county approves the MOU on Wednesday. Stranger things have happened.

Budget Review

One item that doesn’t require a vote this week but is timely is a Charter mandated mid-year review of the budget from the revenue and finance staff. In two months the mayor will be presenting her budget proposal to council. This should be an opportunity to see where revenue projections are for the current fiscal year compared to expenses. And to maybe ask what a $20 million hit in the upcoming budget would look like.

If council begin looking for items to continue to allow more discussion of the MOU, this should be excluded from consideration. Last thing I’ll add, there’s no supporting documentation with this item in the first draft, but I’ve advocated for something like this. As long as any information that’s shared with council during the review is posted in a conspicuous place on the city website after the meeting for the public, I think it’s fair. Others have argued they’d like to review the information prior to the meeting in order to be able to ask questions or make a public comment.

The rest of the agenda

To put things in perspective, council is considering approximately $56 million in funding requests this week, ranging from $5,000 (a nonprofit contribution for Elevate Tampa Bay) to $30 million (a citywide water distribution rehabilitation contract).

Speaking of the budget, there are numerous small requests for approval for what’s been classified at “Social Action & Arts Funds”. $15,000 here, $65,000 there. Next week’s workshop has been earmarked to hopefully resolve this issue before the next budget, I’d encourage anyone who have questions or concerns about how the $1 million is spent or how projects are classified to direct your efforts there. Workshops provide an opportunity to speak directly to the item subject and to speak on more than one item.

And to take a second, I always encourage folks to email if they’re not able to speak in person. And I also like to remind folks to email when you’re strongly in support of a project or item, don’t under estimate the power of one email.

It can feel trivial to shift from discussing $180 million dollar projects and then mention a $150,000 budget item like 6. Listen closer and the $150,000 request for a city initiative, RISE Reconnect, is part of a longer tale about the $120 million Hanna Ave project and questions that linger about the necessity of building that project and funding anything else for it. Oddly, none of the supporting documents actually explain what the RISE Reconnect project is. Maybe that was covered the first time this was on the agenda.

Parks and funding are a hot topic and Item 25 is $2.2 million for “Athletic City Wide Lighting Design-Build”. This is a second Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP-2) to “to maintain and improve the quality and longevity of the current lighting system at American Legion Park, Gadsden Park, and Perio & Albany Park.” That’s in addition to the 3 parks approved in GMP-1.

Stormwater is another topic of concern as we enter another rainy season so items 29 regarding a change to the Manhattan Ave stormwater project is of note. Development of a maintenance of traffic plan

This Change Order 1 provides for the addition of the following provisions: Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; Debarment and Suspension; Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment; procurement of recovered materials; extension of contract by 17 calendar days for the scheduling of water main shutdown; and time extension of 80 calendar days for development of a maintenance of traffic plan.

Iitem 30 is a request to move $465,267.99 from the “Neptune Way Improvement Projects” to the Beach Park project due to “unforeseen conflicts during the life of the project for the completion of construction.”

Items 33 and 34 are requests for funding for outside counsel – extend contract with firm assisting with the “parental leave” consent decree and for assistance in the area of signs, zoning and land use. The debate over video signs has been brewing since the late council member Gwen Henderson made a motion for staff to report on the state of the issue. There’s been back and forth over creating “districts” or “zones” where certain types of signs would be permitted. Previously, there have been debates (and zoning disputes) over what’s a flag and what’s a sign. Coincidently item 68 is a presentation from Downtown Partnership about large format digital signs.

Item 36 is one I’m keeping an eye on, Gandy Park South and A.J. Palonis Park Improvements Project. This allocates another $650,000 to the project. When this first appeared on the agenda in February I noted some discrepancies between the RFQ and the final contract. Particularly in light of the condition of the two fishing piers in Tampa. This project was intended to include a new fishing pier but currently is not in scope. Which is unfortunate as both Ballast Point and Picnic Island Piers are closed. Another section of the Picnic Island Pier fell last week so any hope for repair was probably dashed and it’s doubtful insurance is going to cover replacement. It would be nice for at least one option to be operable in the next decade.

In the mobility department, items 42 and 43 should be of interest. The Jefferson St Complete Streets project if I’m not mistaken will connect protected bike lanes with Cass St south. Item 43 extends the agreement for the Regional Infrastructure Accelerator Cooperative which among other things has been a vehicle for discussing the financing to extend the street car and other modes of transportation.

Beyond that there are second readings on land use issues that all passed unanimously on first reading, a petition to review a zoning case and several additional staff reports including an update on Rome Yard – “Related Group to provide an update on which companies/contractors are working, and if there have been any changes in companies and contractors related to the Rome Yard Community Benefits Agreement.”

As mentioned, council sit for a workshop next week with land use applications specific to alcohol beverage sales in the evening.

And if you can’t get enough agenda talk, I highly recommend Stephanie Poynor’s weekly agenda review.