A lot going on these days so just a reminder the focus of this weekly preview is to hone in and highlight the items council will be voting on Thursday. While presentations about redistricting and flooding/stormwater are important, nothing final will be decided. Best reviewed after the presentations and after questions are asked. That’s not to discourage anyone from sharing their thoughts with council on the subject, but at their heart, those agenda items are informational. Of the 80 items on the agenda, council will be voting to approve 68 items.

One outlier is item 75 which is related to the proposed increase to the multi-modal impact fee. Council held two workshops to determine extraordinary circumstances and now it’s time to decide how much they are going to raise the fees. Staff will be presenting the results of the rate study and their recommendations but ultimately it will be up to council on how much and whether it’s phased in. Part of the exercise in determining extraordinary circumstances was so the rates wouldn’t need to be phased in but the option is there. So there may be a motion or informal vote agreeing to rates proposed. Once those details are set, 2 public hearings will be held before adoption. New fees would then go into effect 90 days after.

Item 70 comes with a staggering price tag of $52,935,137 but council won’t be voting on it this week. Council passed a rule that anything over $20 million needs to be presented 2 weeks before the request. Even for a planned electrical overhaul of the water treatment plant.

10 of the items (7/8, 10-17) are related to $1.79 million in grants for Tampa Police. With an operating budget of $221 million, every dollar counts but it’s also a reminder of how little federal or state funding cities receive for law enforcement. As Republicans in Tallahassee keep pushing their various “eliminate property taxes” proposals, no one has addressed how the city will pay for police and fire. And speaking of TPD and grants, while not on this week’s agenda, Creative Loafing reported TPD have applied for $430,000 in grant funding from ICE.

Item 36 is a request for $800,000 for a Facilities Management Master Plan. From the Request for Quotation (RFQ):

“this project aims to create a Facilities Management Master Plan (FMMP) to serve as a strategic roadmap and step by step guideline to improve the Logistics & Asset Management (LAM) | Facility Management Division’s operations both today and into the future. The program will also address the remaining functional lifespan of existing facilities, including planning for the replacement of outdated structures, and preventative maintenance requirements to ensure facility functionality over the course of the next three (3) decades.”

Which sounds like a good idea, especially going into a new administration in 18 months. Except there are a couple of red flags in this item that three years ago probably would have been approved without discussion. First, the RFQ notes the budget for the project is $350,000-$400,000. There’s no indication in the backup material what the other firms bid or why the budget doubled since April when the RFQ was prepared. Second, it’s a “Design-Bid-Build” contract. What’s getting built in a master plan? What exactly do they mean “planning for the replacement of outdated structures?” There’s no doubt much like the rest of the city’s aging infrastructure city facilities need addressing. See item 52 “Many maintained facilities have aging equipment and deficiencies requiring extensive general maintenance. With aging facilities come unforeseen and emergency repairs, necessary to maintain normal operation such as HVAC, roofing, and plumbing failures.” Council should definitely pull this one from the consent agenda and get a thorough explanation before opening a can of worms they won’t be able to put the lid back on 9 months from now.

Item 68 is a $7.5 million settlement with Tony Hopps who was wrongfully convicted of burglary of a dwelling with a firearm and robbery with a firearm for which he received concurrent life sentences. He served 31 years before being released. In the Hopps case:

Despite knowing that Hopps was not one of those seen fleeing from the stolen car and that he did not match the description the Dycheses had provided, McNamara decided to pin the robbery on him; McNamara had a dislike for Hopps because Hopps previously refused to identify a suspect in another crime that McNamara was investigating. O’Nolan and Strickland went along with this plan.
The detectives compiled a photo array that included six men, all known or suspected robbers in cases unrelated to the Dyches case. One of the men was Hopps, but the detectives used an old photo of him without a beard because they knew using the photo that Strickland took on the day of the robbery would cause the Dycheses to exclude him as a suspect.

Item 71 is a $7 million (3 year) contract for armed security at city facilities including parking garages. This one is light on details on how the security franchise selected won the bid. The parent company’s sparse website doesn’t make any reference to security and is geared towards law enforcement agencies. Which begs the question why does a city with a police force need to hire for-profit armed security in the first place? Emphasis on armed.

Finally, council will be voting to approve the ordinance outlining the process for establishing the Charter Review Commission on item 76. The commission is purely advisory, any recommendations they approve will still require a majority vote by council before they appear on the ballot March of 2027. Not to take away from the importance of the discussions that will result from the commission debating changes to the charter. Changes that could shape how the city operates for decades.

Council will be off next week in observance of Thanksgiving, returning December 4th for single a regular meeting.