Last week Council had 2 workshops, a special call land use hearing Tuesday evening and a brief regular land use hearing Thursday evening. Council voted to reject the proposed settlement/compromise related to an appeal and lawsuit by the applicant for the property at 2713 Bayshore Blvd. But to be clear, that is not the end of it. The original application will now go back to the Special Magistrate to conduct a hearing. After which they will submit a recommendation to Council on how to resolve the case. Council will then hear the Special Magistrate’s recommendation at a public hearing at which time they can either accept, reject or modify the recommendation. If they reject it, further legal proceedings will continue. At Thursday’s meeting, Council unanimously approved the new leases with the University of Tampa that will allow UT to take over the property for McKay Auditorium/Sykes College of Business. A late addition to the lease added the stipulation that reverts the property back to the city if it’s ever used for commercial purposes. But that would also require Council to approve a change to their PD-A so in essence it will always be for the school to use for educational purposes.

Quickly, I’m not recapping the workshops as I really try to focus on what is actually being voted on. The Tampa Bay Times has been doing a decent job of reporting on some issues after the vote. That’s not to say I didn’t review the workshops or that nothing substantive was discussed. But the items that were discussed are either coming back to the agenda for formal action or another workshop. Which is to say, some headlines I’ve read said “Council approved…” related to short term flood relief. What Council actually approved was to bring it back in March, when there will be a larger presentation on the topic along with costs at which point Council will address the budget for these issues. But again, no new money has actually been appropriated. It may seem pedantic but things can change over the course of a month. There are multiple opportunities for Council to amend or change the motion. I don’t doubt Council will approve additional funding, I’m just waiting until it’s up for a vote before detailing anything.

This week Council’s schedule is back to normal with a single regular meeting Thursday. They will be voting on 62 items ranging from approving $346,333 for TPD to purchase a bomb disposal robot to finally starting the design process for Tampa Fire Rescue Station 24.

This won’t be a controversial vote, but it may be a controversial topic. At every step Council has approved the building of this station. It has been part of the Capitol Improvement Plan since 2022. Every budget since Council approved funding for this station. It was part of the $80 million reimbursement resolution (required step in order to use bonding to fund) in 2022. One year ago another reimbursement resolution for $50 million was approved (this one was worded to only cover building station 24 and the relocation of fleet maintenance & supply). Thursday they will be voting (item 22) to approve $2.3 million to design the station. Never mind over the last 3 years the Fire Chief and head of the union have stated there’s already a design, this is the first tangible step to the station being built since funding was approved. Based on previous comments from staff for other design/build projects, expect the design process to take 8-9 months. Which means expect a build contract around the end of the year, ground breaking in early 2026 and a completion most likely in the next mayor’s term. There are several additional items on the agenda under staff reports related to TFR. Ironically one includes an update on Station 24 and fleet maintenance & supply. Maybe there will be a surprise announcement they’ve finally secured land for that.

The other item related to TFR is item 68. “Staff to brief City Council on perspective resolution of the public safety records request done by Tampa Firefighters Local 754, representatives of the Administration, and Tampa Fire Rescue.” One of the hills I’m willing to die on is advocating for more open data. For me, in a 21st century government, open data is core to transparency and accountability. I believe at a minimum all data (anonymized when necessary) should be made in machine readable format. In developer jargon “a public API endpoint.” There may be technical hurdles for compiling this data currently. Based on the state of other TFR tech discussed at Council, I wouldn’t be surprised. But it should be something considered when the tech is replaced. I believe it should be a stipulation for any future vendor contracts for software. The Clerk’s office shouldn’t have to spend time and resources providing data that is public. I also want to clarify the difference between public records requests for communications and data. The data is yours. Mine. We pay for it, it should be accessible. I’m not suggesting the comms within the city be a public message board.

Beyond that I didn’t seen anything that will bring a lot of discussion. Item 38 is another internal audit, this on the Convention Center. The only issue I noticed was concern with inventory control. It sounds like another case of someone retiring and a replacement not lined up.

Item 42 is approval of the acceptance of a HUD grant for $1 million for HUD grant for the rapid unsheltered survivor housing (RUSH) grant. How those funds will be used isn’t clear.

Item 46 is setting the public hearings for next month (March 6 and 27) for a proposed development agreement for a project in east Ybor. March 6th is shaping up to be a big day.

Council will also be voting on the second reading of the two ordinances that raise the threshold for Council approval from $100,000 to $200,000. It passed first reading unanimously with Carlson being absent. Additional second readings for several land use cases are also on the agenda all having passed unanimously at first reading.

Item 60 is an agreement with a contractor to administer the $3.2 million dollar State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program/Housing Program Funds. “30% of eligible beneficiaries assisted shall have household income at or below 30% AMI, 30% at or below 50% AMI, and 40% at or below 140% AMI”.

Item 64 is a contract approval for “ditch rehabilitation” on N Grady Ave and N 43rd St. Considering the discussion at last week’s workshop about short term solutions to flooding issues and the need to better maintain ditches, $3.3 million sounds like a lot in relation to budgets discussed. More details are necessary to understand what the intended work entails.

Finally, there will be a review hearing (item 57) for an appeal of a denial of a design exception by the Zoning Administrator. Oddly, the denial is about the style of architecture as much as it is about a height restriction on an accessory dwelling unit. Code requires “ranch building form” and applicant is proposing “Spanish eclectic”. Their argument is the property is tucked back on the river away from the other homes in the neighborhood and that Spanish eclectic is the predominant style along the river in that area. As to the height restriction, the applicant is arguing it is not an accessory dwelling unit but a new home with garage on a separate lot. Intriguing if you really like to get into the weeds of design exceptions but not one I expect controversy. The other review hearing that was scheduled for Thursday has public opposition but a request for continuance was requested.