This week will be the briefest yet. I’m really wary of falling off the punditry cliff and I don’t have the time for it. That’s not to say I won’t continue to try and highlight what is on the agenda, I just would like to approach it in a more objective way. Also, as I have been pointing at various steps, the budget will be here before we know it. 3 months means 6 regular meetings, 3 CRA meetings and 3 workshops minus summer break.
I keep saying I want to spend more time on the backend of the site so I can build more tools but I haven’t stopped typing words long enough to do that. I’d like to have them in place before the budget presentation. I believe doing the work will also afford me more time to write by customizing the publishing experience. That’s to say, unless something changes, weekly posts will be brief until we near late summer. I made a promise to myself that I wouldn’t try to monetize the site with ads or some weird subscription model but that’s not to say that I am not open to sponsorships to facilitate the work. I have considered setting up as a non-profit to that end. If that’s something you would like to discuss, please get in touch.
Wrap Up
Last week Council sat as the CRA board and debated the idea of lowering the cap on the downtown CRA district contributions. Currently it’s 95%, meaning only 5% of the tax revenue captured downtown goes into the general fund. Council/CRA Board have been discussing reducing that number freeing up more general revenue funds. Additionally proposals for extending the Ybor district, similar reductions in contributions to Channelside and creating a new district for Sulphur Springs were on the agenda and debated. All motions related to altering the status quo failed. Sulphur Springs is set to come back in October after the budget discussions and the Admin has an opportunity to a broader assessment of the land surrounding the residential core of Sulphur Springs. Generally the argument was “we can spend money in Sulphur Springs without a CRA” vs “creating a CRA forces investment instead of just talking about it.”
For the evening land use hearing, I have only been able to review the items related to Ybor Harbor. And truthfully, once the Future Land Use changes were approved, that was the whole ballgame. The motion to approve passed 6-1 with Hurtak voting no.
However, skimming through the rezoning, one thing did make me chuckle (I said I didn’t want to fall into punditry but bear with me on this one). Considering the size of the proposed development, 4,500 people in what is now mostly industrial/undeveloped land, the question was raised about public safety. Fire rescue. The applicant was quick to show how the development is triangulated with existing stations and presented a copy of the 5 year Capital Improvement Project plan for Fire Rescue, noting the money in the budget for Station 6 in the Palmetto Beach area.
Except earlier this year, Council declined to include station 6 in the reimbursement resolution and it currently is unfunded. Certainly Council could pass another reimbursement resolution to include bonding station 6 with 24 and the fleet and maintenance move, as it is in the budget, or they and the Admin will need to identify the funding source. I will also note that if one wanted to read between the lines of the comments during the public hearing, understanding that the money in this year’s budget for station 6 was for land acquisition, some horse trading is going on behind the scenes. But as it stands, that station is not funded and there hasn’t been any status updates on the project 6 months into the fiscal year.
Look Ahead
Presented without comment, items 6-12 are for vehicles for TPD. Specifically Chevy 4×4 trucks. $1,627,304.85 worth. On 3-7-24 Council approved $1,836,704.40 for TPD vehicles including 30 Ford F-150 4×4 trucks.
On the public hearing/land use side, second reading for the YMCA development is the only item that received votes against among all second readings this week. The neighbors that are against the height of the building will most likely mount one more plea but I don’t see this losing 3 votes.
Beyond that, there will be a lot of discussion about contracts. I highlighted a handful of $1 million dollar contracts that should get the same level of scrutiny as one big contract. I wasn’t the only person to feel that way and they are coming back to Council for further explanation. I did see in the back up material these contracts have a good percentage of minority/small business participation. I would question how much of that is local. That was my primary question when reading them. How many local subcontractors are we using? The cost escalations and potential for misuse by having millions dollars worth of work to hand out without oversight is also up for discussion.
Additionally there will be some presentations/discussions around the bid process and requiring a certain number of bidders.
One item I will be interested to see play out will be item 83 – Communications Dept. Budget. I’ve made plenty of public comments about my dislike of any mayor using the Comms Dept as a political wing. I also wish our social media team would start using Alt text correctly instead of using it tag Bloomberg. Which leads to a possible rant about Digital Services and we don’t want that.
Finally, Item 86 Reconciliation Commission will be voted on by Council. The final language is very flowery and does a good job of name dropping a multitude of civil rights leaders but then you get to the fine print and see that Council member Viera is proposing the Commission dissolve by February 2025. Second reading of this resolution would be in 2 weeks. Meaning only in a perfect world will 13 members be appointed, organized and have their first meeting before June 1st. More likely July 1st. So that is 7 months (not accounting for holidays) for 13 people from diverse backgrounds to organize around the 5 broad topics outlined in the resolution and formulate concrete, actionable recommendations to Council in a written report. I understand setting a sunset date and a written report of recommendations. But I think giving the Commission less than a year for such a serious subject is shortsighted. I’ve shared stronger words on twitter.
If you aren’t familiar with the Commission, it was part of a previous resolution, Resolution 2020-568.