Workshop
Item 1 – Solid Waste Rate Adjustment
The details of the rate adjustment were presented. Rates haven’t changed in 10 years for residential pickup (currently $34.91/mo) and we provide twice a week garbage and once a week recycling and weekly compostable yard waste pickup. The proposed rate increase would start at three dollars and change a month and increase another 3-4 dollars each month through 2029. A monthly increase spread over 4 years of $20. A 60% increase. This rate increase would fund the already approved bonding for the retrofit of the waste to energy plant as well, additional capitol outlays as well as making sure that it the department will be able to fund operations, people, and maintenance.
On the accounting side, the proposal set for by the Admin is that we borrow short term to fund operations and additional capital projects while the rate increase is taking effect and then rolling it all into one big $250 million 30 year bond. From my understanding of the process and economics, assuming approval of the rate increase, the other option would be to take money from other parts of the city to fund the deficit the Solid Waste Department would be running at until those rates start to level off costs vs revenue. That would eliminate some debt and cut down long term costs. The argument doing it this way is that it’s the most effective way to share these long term investments into public service with future residents. A request was made to bring back on the June 6 agenda item planned for this subject possible ways to spread out the increase over a longer period of time as well as economic impact of the proposed subsidies for low-income or elderly residents. I assume we already have those programs so the cost is going to be the difference in the rate increase over how many people currently participate in the program or we anticipate would participate due to the increase. So yeah, the rest of us help pay their garbage bill. That’s what communities do. We each kick in a dollar every month as part of our bill (probably far less.) We do the same for water.
I also appreciated the debate over one day a week or two. A majority of Council thinks it’s absurd to consider only picking up one day a week. I’m in the minority. I have the original curb side can I was issued when we switched to the new system. Our two person home can’t fill that thing in a week, let alone twice. Recycling, which we’ve been doing since we had to drive it ourselves to the drop off location by the dog track, we fill every two weeks. So I for one would rather a reduction in frequency versus a $30 a month rate increase over the next 5 years and then adjusting with the Consumer Price Index annually.
If we are investing in a new mapping service for heuristic route development it should be possible to adjust routes by individual address based frequency. The time plus wear and tear saved on a vehicles making less stops is real. The point was made that we don’t all pay the same rate for water, we pay for how much we take in and what’s expected to go down the drain. Why is garbage different if the practical implementation is possible?
The other point I think that was lost on some folks, we have now implemented a compostable only yard waste pickup so that we can do the things everyone is talking about. You cannot put out yard waste in plastic bags. No more raking the leaves into giant black bags from the big box store. Paper bags or bundled with jute. It can also be in a can that can be picked up by an average human. The point being, that’s the first step. We are implementing a composting program. Tell your neighbors. There’s even a backyard composting program you can sign up for.
Item 2 Honorary Naming
I do not know the timing of the situation that caused this item to come forward but last year Council passed an ordinance revamping the process of naming stuff. Prior to that it was a convoluted process. The new ordinance clearly defines that anyone in the public could submit a nomination through the application process- All must include full bio and type of naming request. The Mayor, a Council member, me. That’s in the ordinance now. What seems to be at issue is how a Council member makes their nomination. The solution seems to me to simply eliminate making a motion (that requires a vote) before submitting an application. The Mayor and the public are required to submit an application with a bio and background. Council should be no different. That gets the item a basic vetting for objective requirements in the ordinance and puts it on the agenda. Staff said they currently are processing those applications in 21 days. At that point the bio and application are included in Onbase for the rest of Council and the public. It then requires a motion to bring the item back for 1st reading. That is the point of the process that as Council discussed today, “they can be politicians”. If that motion passes, there is another motion required to move the item to 2nd reading. Two weeks later, if that motion passes, there’s a final vote. By ordinance it requires 3 votes. There’s no need to add another without any context to announce your intent to submit an application. There’s plenty of time to make your argument and honor the person.
Item 3 Urban Tree Canopy and the Heat Projects planned with emphasis in East Tampa
When I previewed this I noted there was a recent presentation adjacent to this topic so I wasn’t sure what this would cover. First let me say that I think Whit Remer is a fantastic asset to our community. I would love for his input to be earlier in public policy discussions. Thursday he previewed a new “playbook” he’s been working on for a more wholistic, practical approach to mitigating heat risks. Both in public spaces but also from the standpoint of improving energy efficiency in cooling indoor spaces.
A couple of things that jumped out to me was this year the City hired a full time person to focus energy efficiency within our own buildings. The city’s electric bill last year he said was $25 million. He also listed several projects for homeowners for grants and funding for residential home hardening for weather and energy efficiency improvements.
As to the Urban tree canopy and our efforts to plant more trees and enforce existing ordinances—those efforts continue as we learn from our mistakes. It sounds like the mistakes we are working through are ambitious efforts to get more folks to plant trees without realistic oversight of the plans. Wrong types of trees or too many in a small space. Education efforts continue.
Item 4 Staff to discuss the recommendation and options relating to Section 27-61 of the City Code
This didn’t go very far. Of the public comment provided, voices generally on either side of the development/neighborhood debate were in agreement that the proposal from staff to the motion by Council should not be pursued. I want to emphasize that last point. This recommendation was created at the request of Council. That doesn’t preclude staff from listening to feedback from this discussion and public feedback and proposing something modified if they felt strongly enough about any of their recommendations.
Evening Meeting
There was a walk on item to set a public hearing for the City’s approval of the interlocal agreement and language in the County’s proposed 1/2¢ tax to replace the expiring 1¢ Community Investment Tax. Most of that went to pay for Raymond James Stadium but the remainder has been an important source of funding for the city and county. My understanding is the language in the agreement won’t change and that basically the project language is the same in the current CIT minus sports stadiums. Regardless, law requires a public hearing and Council approval.
The other non-land use item on the agenda was Annual Action Plan For Housing And Community Development Programs These are state and federal funds that can only be used for certain projects but over the past few years there have been carry over funds that they were able to re-program in the budget. Which I am assuming the approval of that seems to have lead to this announcement – City Awards $750,000 for Affordable Housing Project for Seniors. Excellent work.
The Tampa Heights Future Land Use Amendment (FLUA) proposal on the agenda was continued until August. Probably the same day that there’s a budget workshop and this turns out to be a lengthy discussion. Otherwise, this was an alcohol night and there were no controversial cases. There was one application, from the folks at Santoro’s in North Hyde Park who are opening a larger second location closer to Kennedy, a few neighbors expressed concerns with hours and noise. The owners were quick to commit on the site plan their hours to not extend past midnight on weekends and 11 during the week, with outdoor activities and sound cut off an hour earlier.
Leave a Reply