With some new readers I wrote a short piece to cover what’s the goal with these weekly posts but the tl;dr: bring awareness to what’s being voted on this week so that people have time to weigh in before the vote.
The draft agenda has 75 items, 62 which require a vote. Contracts range from $555 for software licenses for TPD to $12.8 million for Liquid Ferric Sulfate for the Water Department. Leading those votes however will be the selection of Chair and Chair Pro-Tem for Council as well as Chair and Vice-Chair of the CRA Board. Currently those roles are filled by Council member Maniscalco Chair, Council member Clendenin Chair Pro-Tem, Council member Henderson as CRA Chair and Viera Vice-Chair.
The city doesn’t have a Vice-Mayor so the Charter dictates the chair “discharge the duties of the mayor” if the mayor is unable to either temporarily or “due to death or resignation”. The last time this came into play was 1986 when Bob Martinez resigned to run for Governor and Council Chair Sandy Freedman completed his term. Prior to that, in 1974 Dick Greco resigned. Richard L. Cheney was Council Chair and became acting Mayor. He died in office two and a half months later and was succeeded by Council Chair Pro-Tem Lloyd Copeland.
One area of the agenda I haven’t given much attention to are the items related to vacant and abandoned property. Item 20 is approving the city assessing the costs to demolition an abandoned building and item 21 is assessing the costs for mowing and/or removing offensive accumulations for 7 properties. Every week these items appear. But there are folks in the community who have been paying attention and are attempting to build momentum within the administration to try and tackle these issues. It’s not about gentrification, it’s about having sensible rules around mothballing a building and creating incentives for landowners to put these properties into circulation. I encourage you to read about their work, signup for notifications and help Tampa go from vacant to vibrant.
Item 42 Tampa Hope Shelter run by Catholic Charities, Diocese of St. Petersburg, Inc.
I had to do a timeline on this one because I think when you see it you’ll have questions too.
- Catholic Charities, Diocese of St Petersburg Inc announced a $7.4 million investment to include “the rehab of the existing building, construction of new facilities (kitchen, dining room, bathrooms, laundry, showers, etc.).”
- In December of 2021 the city announced the first 50 residents would be moving in to the cottages with the city providing $750,000 for 75 of the first 100 cottages.
- December 2022 Creative Loafing reported the cottages had yet to be built.
- April 2023 the city announced another 100 more had been added for a total of 225 cottages at a roughly $10,000 per cottage.
- September 2023 a $350,000 contract for Rapid Rehousing Services for 15 households was approved.
- April 2024 Tampa Bay Times reported the new cottages sat empty for a year and the first “residents” were finally moved in.
- August 2024 the contract was amended to add $1.2 million and included 100 new cottages. (Are those the same 100 the city announced in April 2023 or 100 more for a total of 325? Catholic Charities originally said capacity was 300)
- December 2024 the contract was amended a second time to extend the terms until March 31, 2025.
- March 2025 the contract was amended a third time to extend the terms until September 30, 2025.
- May 1 2025 a request for an additional $630,000 with an increase to 125 new cottages (25 more, 350 then?) and extend the terms until September 30, 2026.
I think a public update on the actual status of this project is warranted with some hard data and accountability. Especially when only 10 of the 125 new cottages are designated for the City of Tampa Homeless Outreach Team. Who are actually being served by this facility?
Item 48 is $713,810 for an asphalt paver. Not very exciting, unless you’re into heavy machinery, which really, who isn’t? But I mention it because the city has been building capacity to take on more paving in-house and this is another step. Without these types of investments things like the extra $5 million earmarked last week for paving doesn’t go as far. Most likely a coincidence, but I shared this article with Council members almost 2 years ago. “How State Capacity Can Help America Build” which looks at a paper that
“demonstrates that increases in government capacity, which can invite more bidders into a project and foment competition, translate into substantial cost reductions, which subsequently leads to faster and more robust projects.”
A lot of times these days, the facts play out that government can build roads cheaper if they build the capacity.
Item 59 is a development agreement that as I understand it allows the developer to build housing without doing an underlying land use change in exchange for including 10% “affordable” housing. The city isn’t making any other concessions and council isn’t obligated to accept the agreement. It’s not “Live Local”. I believe it just saves the developer time and money by doing this versus rezoning the current PD. The future land use designation for the property supports the proposed density.
Item 65 is a $40,000,000 contract to NAPA Auto Parts for the furnishing of Contractor Operated Parts Store Services.
- First, due to rules Council established, they will not be voting on this contract this week. If I recall anything over $20 million requires a 2 week period for public awareness. (It’s not quasi-judicial so it’s not “public notice” in the sense anything has to be published or posted beyond the agenda). The actual vote will be May 15th.
- Second, this is a 48 month contract across 5 fiscal years awarded through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process.
- Third, it covers all vehicle and equipment maintenance including Tampa Fire. The new contract provides for satellite facilities as opposed to a single source. They provide full time staff onsite using their logistics.
- Finally, the real issue is that due to the insanity of the President of the United States with his haphazard economic policies and tariffs, the city is factoring in an additional $2.5 million a year over the current $7.5 million we already spend city wide.
So that $2.9 SAAF discussion last week, or the need for more resources for helping the unhoused or any other unmet need of the city is directly being impacted by that recklessness. Staff does make clear this is an “up to” amount, not a check for $40 million to NAPA. It could be argued the contact could have been for $30 million and if the tariffs/expenses rise to that level the contract could be amended next FY.
Finally I know there is still keen interest in the South Howard Flood Relief Project and there was a motion made related to a possible alternate route that went through local roads in New Suburb Beautiful. Staff sent a memo stating they are evaluating both the route in the in the original RFP as well as alternates proposed by businesses on South Howard. There won’t be any further updates until the first public meeting sometime in early June.
