Top of the agenda will be a new update on the future of the Jackson House. No details were shared to the agenda in advance, this is only informational and will hopefully answer more questions than raises new ones. One year ago anticipating one of these updates I wrote “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.” It withstood the winds from Milton. It’s up to us now.

Nothing like focusing the entire post last week about an issue, the Gas Worx CDD interlocal agreement with the CRA, only to have the applicant request a one month continuance the day before the meeting. But lucky enough for me, that same item is on the agenda for City Council this week. I’ll save you a click and reiterate:

• the $32 million TIF request to the CRA was approved 12/23
• the CDD was approved by Council last year (and is bound by state law)
• No one is handing over money to a private developer—it’s the opposite. The developer through the CDD is doing $32 million in infrastructure work as part of the overall project. Once the property is developed and generating property tax revenue, they will begin to get a tax rebate to offset those expenses.

Another topic I’ve recently discussed, Tampa Fire Rescue Capitol Improvement projects, is also on the agenda this week in the form of a contract for $4.6 million to purchase land to build/move TFR fleet maintenance & supply. As previously noted, this has been in the CIP since 2022, Council has approved every request, including twice as part of reimbursement resolutions (formal declarations of an intent to borrow the money to build the project). The last was for $76 million for just station 24 and the fleet maintenance relocation approved a year ago. So the money is there and now they have a property. Once this project is complete, the city will have decisions to make about the existing land this is on and how to move forward with the other stations that need attention. Speaking of, during new business the CRA Board last week had a conversation about the possibility of funding a downtown/Channelside forestation with CRA funds. The caveat is that it requires the County to approve an amendment to the interlocal agreement allowing the funds to be used for such a project. A loophole in the state laws governing CRAs basically allows that as along as all governing bodies involved approve of a use, it doesn’t have to be for “reducing slum and blight”.

Speaking of the downtown CRA district funding even more projects that don’t seem to square with the “reducing slum and blight” but is part of an agenda item for Council this week is item 49. The UNITE: Ashley Drive project. I was mistakenly led to believe this was all/mostly funded by federal funds. Incorrect. Council is being asked to approve the expenditure of bonding funds as well as $4.7 million in “projected interest earnings”. There is also $8 million the city is going to ask the CRA to kick in as a special project request. Keep that in mind as folks still discuss capping the downtown CRA.

Council will also be hearing second readings on several land use applications including a couple that have carried over from the end of 2024. Both are on Columbus Ave, one at North Blvd, the other at Florida Ave. Both have had a lot of public comment/involvement. They both were continued due to an absent Council member, a change in a vote and a 3-3 tie. At the next hearing, both were returned to first reading status and passed due to resolutions between the neighborhood and developer in the case of the North Blvd development (unanimously ), and a 20% increase of retail (from ~4,000 sq ft to 5,000 sq ft) for the Florida Ave development (4-3).

One other item that seems innocuous but could be controversial is the job order contracts for owner occupied rehab work. 6 companies each receiving contracts worth up to $1.9 million, $11.4 million total. These are for work to be done through city wide and CRA grants as I understand it. Funding that’s been appropriated somewhere. This could get into the weeds of how government procurement works along with accountability requirements. Nobody just writes a home owner a check for $30,000 to fix a roof. You qualify, someone determines what work is needed, the cost, and then one of these companies is assigned the work. How they hire subcontractors or whether they are local and part of the community is another thing.

But I want to touch on the rest of the agenda for a second. The part that Council doesn’t vote on. There is a lot of important information and important conversations that happen here. I simply don’t have the current bandwidth to dig into them and try and write about them. But I do read the written reports and listen to the discussions. Occasionally I’ll touch on them in a wrap up but I try to mostly treat them as informational so when an item does come up for a vote I have context to share. But if you are an advocate on an issue that appears on a staff report, this is absolutely the place and time for you to ask questions and communicate your concerns or support. Drive the discussion and help shape the language of the next vote.