City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you.

What's the third one?

Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for your patience. Welcome back to Tampa City Council. Clerk, call the roll, please.

Miranda.

Here.

Maniscalco. Here. Pertek. Young. Here. Vieira. Carlson. Here. And Clendenin. Here. We have a fiscal forum.

Can I get unanimous consent to address item number 44, and then we'll go to the South Harvest? Is everybody okay with that? Good. Okay. Item number 44. Is there any staff here for the area? Hello there.

Hello there. Caught me off guard there for a second. Good afternoon, David Hay, Planning Commission staff. Before I begin the presentation, I want to acknowledge Danny Collins, who was instrumental in the Planning Commission's research and coordination with city staff. He is enjoying a well-deserved vacation, so you're all stuck with me this afternoon. I'll be presenting with the assistance of city planning and legal staff, and we'll be presenting the results of the research conducted regarding your motion. As a reminder, your motion asked us to research ways other local governments restrict comprehensive plan amendments to the entitlements approved in a plan development rezoning. and to outline the impacts of using similar approaches here in Tampa. To frame the discussion, we'll start with Florida's growth management requirements. State law is very clear in this. Each future land use category must be defined in terms of uses included and must include standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population densities and building and structure intensities. This means any PD future land use category must still include defined standards, density, intensity, and allowable uses. Within the comprehensive plan itself, PD zoning conditions alone cannot substitute for this statutory requirements. In Florida, PD flu categories are most commonly used for large, undeveloped tracts, often master-planned communities. They provide flexibility for unique site conditions and long-term development programs. A good example here is Pasco County's Starkey Ranch subarea, which is around 2,000 acres. These PD flu designations are typically paired with detailed development standards adopted directly into the comprehensive plan. Tampa's development pattern is very different to Pasco's. We currently have 26 flu categories, all of which include defined uses, density, and FAR, a Florida ratio maximums. We do not have a PD flu category or similar mechanism currently. And importantly, the median comprehensive plan amendment in Tampa is about 1.02 acres in size. That's a very small scale compared to the large tracts of PD flu categories typically used elsewhere. The team reviewed several jurisdictions, Pasco County was one of them, Seminole County, Orange County, and the city of Gainesville. Each uses PD flu categories differently, but the common theme is that they apply them to large areas and rely on multiple layers of approval, map amendments, text amendments, PD zonings, and any adopting ordinances. Across jurisdictions, we found several consistent patterns. Many require both a map and text amendment adopted by ordinance. Most apply the PD flu categories to large undeveloped land. Several jurisdictions are moving away from this mechanism due to complexity, and notably cities like Orlando, Miami, and Fort Lauderdale do not use PD flu categories at all. Overall, PD flu categories tend to add complexity rather than reduce them. is what staff found in our discussions with the other jurisdictions. Here's an example from one of PASCO's 86 master-planned unit developments or sub-areas. You can see it calls out specific maximums for each approved use. The actual design guidelines for any of the area would be further regulated through PASCO's Land Development Code. All right. Staff found that Tampa already has several tools that provide flexibility without needing a planned development flu category. First development bonuses allow projects to exceed standard density or FAR when they provide public benefits such as affordable housing contributions, transit or infrastructure improvements. This gives applicants a predictable path to additional intensity and density while ensuring the city receives something in return. Second, adaptive reuse incentives support redevelopment of older or historic buildings. These incentives already apply within urban villages and are proposed for expansion citywide. They allow projects to consider uses or FAR levels that normally wouldn't be permitted under the underlying flu category, which is especially helpful for infill sites. Third, expanding flexible categories like the existing neighborhood mixed use Future land use categories can support mixed use redevelopment without requiring PD zonings or a new flu designation. And finally, the city can initiate publicly initiated map amendments for unique sites where the existing flu may not align with development goals. This keeps the process predictable while still allowing for some flexibility. Together, these tools already provide multiple pathways for flexibility and redevelopment, without introducing an additional layer of review that a PD flu category would potentially require. Overall, the staff found that introducing a PD flu category in Tampa would potentially create several challenges to how the system operates. First, there's the issue of consistency with Florida's comprehensive planning requirements. State law requires every flu category to include those defined standards. for use as density intensity. A PD fluke category can't rely solely on the PD zonings that are attached to it, the conditions in that zoning. Those standards must be written directly into the comprehensive plan. That's to meet state law. That means that each PD project would need its own set of site-specific standards adopted through a text amendment, which that text amendment would need to be reviewed by the state. Uh, second, this creates a more complex approval structure that the staff found, um, instead of just a map amendment, uh, with an associated rezoning, uh, like I had said earlier, it will require three separate actions. The flu map changed to actually change the subject site from the flu category. Now to the PD flu, uh, designation, a comprehensive plan text amendment associated with that, that would establish the project's maximum, uh, entitlements. under that specific PD flu. And then the PD zoning itself would also need to be processed for zoning. Third, this PD flu approach requires a mechanism in the comprehensive plan to track and maintain project-specific entitlements over time. Tampa processes a high volume of small infill amendments, typically that one a little slightly over an acre. So adding project specific flu standards for each of those sites would significantly increase or potentially increase administrative complexity. Fourth, it would significantly increase staff workload and review timelines because each PD flu designation, since it would carry its own site specific requirements, staff would need to prepare, review and maintain a growing list Because if like in PASCO there's 86, they start out with one and then it eventually starts building. Fifth, it may reduce the overall transparency and predictability for everyone involved in the development process. Right now, and you all know this, you can go into the comprehensive plan and look at, okay, this neighborhood is R10, there's gonna be fluctuations in the zoning underneath that, but they're all capped at the 10. Under this potential PD flu, you could get things that are slightly, if you all agree, of course, slightly over 10, or it could be under 10, a citizen would need to research the PD flu because now they, since it will now not show on the map as the entitlement. So, um, there's that, um, complexity in it. And finally adopting the PD flu category, uh, could work against one of the city stated goals, uh, through the land development code update, the city has been emphasizing, uh, reducing the reliance on PD zoning in favor of a more predictable, like form-based, uh, and conventional zoning tool. a PD flu category would likely increase the number of those PD zonings, not decrease them, because applicants would need to do an additional PD. They could not do a Euclidean under the PD flu category. Together, and it was staff's finding that these issues show that the challenges are not just procedural. They affect clarity, predictability, and long-term administration. When combined with the structural concerns we discussed a couple slides back, They suggest that a PD flu category may introduce some more complex issues than the overall benefit in Tampa's ongoing redevelopment. So here we've got, if I can move this, here we've got South Tampa-Bowis Point, and you know how the structure works. Basically, the adopted flu guides the zoning districts that contain more detail than what the comp plan does. They can't exceed what this map says. What staff found was that over time, the potential is, see all these yellows? These are PD zonings. And it would eventually, how the zoning map looks here could eventually, how this flu map could eventually look with these kind of PD holes in them that then would require further research on what the entitlements were underneath that particular flu. So overall, there were just some considerations. If you all do decide to move this forward, it would be one of the recommendations from the Planning Commission that we look at the cost of what the impacts potentially could be with implementing this. In conclusion, our team did find that the PD flu categories are typically used for those large tracts of undeveloped land, often 50 acres or more. Tampa's development pattern is, again, fundamentally different. Most amendments involve small, currently, most amendments involve those small infill sites. So staff found that it potentially could increase the number of amendments extend the review timelines because now you would technically need to go to the state for the text amendment, the associated text amendment. It may also conflict with the stated goal that I know we've all kind of been kind of working toward of reducing the PD zoning. So given these factors and the other tools such as the bonuses and the adaptive reuse incentives that are currently on there in the comp plan update that hopefully you all see shortly, and target amendments that you all can initiate if there's areas where you feel that the comp plan is not in alignment with where the city would like to go. Those tools provide greater flexibility with fewer administrative burdens is what staff found. So that concludes my presentation. I know I'm available and city staff is here as well if you have any questions or concerns or anything. Thank you.

As you can imagine, yes I do. Yeah, I'd say that I'm not happy with this presentation. It would be a significant understatement. And I find this to be exactly what people hate about government. We have a problem that government should be trying to solve, not government trying to create obstacles for the community in doing things. The intent of this motion from the very beginning was figuring out a way to be as flexible with our land use categories and future land use categories as we are with the zoning and trying to take out, as I stated during I made this motion, the issue with the sky is going to fall if you approve this. Because we have projects, what happens is they get rejected because of the what-if possibilities. So because these categories are so broad that you put us in a position that if we approve a future land use amendment, and then we get briefed every week, isn't that right, Susan? You approve this. This is what the worst case scenario, this, you approve this, this is what could happen. That's generally not what is being presented before us. So what I asked you all to do was come before this council to figure out a way that we could inject some common sense here so that we could say that somebody wants to build a a daycare center on a parcel or some kind of a hotel or something. And we want to do that, but I don't want them to put in the worst case scenario, that future land use category. So again, this is, and I've heard words like mostly, typical, often, not exclusive when it comes to this. Secondly, if you were doing real science, All you've presented to us is the negatives. You couldn't find any positives? Or you just chose not to because you didn't want, y'all didn't want, you chose that you didn't want to do this because it conflicts with your agenda. And I'm not talking to you specifically, I'm talking with the organization. It conflicted with your agenda. We're looking for options to be able to inject some common sense so that we have the flexibility when we choose to use that flexibility as a council, that if someone comes to us with a future land use, or I'm sorry, a rezoning PD, that I can, and it makes sense, but I can't approve the future land use because we get briefed that this is the worst case. If you approve this PD, they're going to build xyz or they potentially because it goes forever right so we're trying to keep that from happening so i mean my intent is to actually do this is direct the legal department on the plan and the planning commission other necessary city staff to create a process that will allow a comprehensive plan map amendment to be tied to the PD rezonings along with increasing the comprehensive plan map and text amendment fees. So I also want to increase the text amendment fees and return on December 17, 2026.

So Susan Johnson, Legal Department. Excuse me. So having been part of all the discussions relative to this response and David's presentation.

And you know every single, confirm or deny, every single conversation we have about future land use.

I can, but the challenge here is trying to maintain compliance with state law, as well as our own comprehensive plan, as well as our land.

I'm not asking to return back with anything that is not state law.

Your, your motion was that you want to create possibly an endless number of PD flu categories.

That is not my motion.

Well, I mean,

That's what you're... No, that was not my motion. I understood that you directed... Listen to my motion. Go back and read the motion. The motion was... Go back and read it. The motion was not that. In other words, y'all figure out a way that we can do this. And it could be whatever way you think is... How can we do this? And if it's with... I know other jurisdictions do use PDs, PD future land use. That's one opportunity that other jurisdictions have chosen to use. I'm not a subject matter expert in this. Maybe there's something that you guys as subject matter experts can figure out. But I know PDs are one example. Future land use PDs is an example that other jurisdictions have used in the state of Florida that obviously must conform to law because it's widely used.

And our research didn't reveal any other mechanism that any other jurisdiction has used for, you know, to achieve what you're saying. It was the PD flu category that, again, as David said, is in... jurisdictions that have large tracts of land. It's not used in urban areas like Tampa, not in Miami, not in Orlando, Fort Lauderdale. And so Tampa is more like those than it is like Pasco County or Orange County or Seminole County. That's the findings that we are bringing back to you. And the challenges of trying to utilize that type of process with, for example, one acre or maybe five acre. I don't know that there are many five acre parcels in the city, I mean, usually these are 20 acres and above, right? They're larger tracts of land.

I think you can agree as well. Generally, PDs are supposed to be for larger scale projects as well, but we routinely use those for single family lots on PDs in the city of Tampa. But conceptually, they were intended to be used for large acreage parcels, but that has evolved over time. That's not the practice that we exercise.

So I think, and I did, I heard your motion again when you repeated it, so I think staff would ask for some guidance.

Well, again, I think it's simple, Susan, is that where again we've had these projects time and time again where the project had merit but the problem is when we go to with the future land use every time i've walked into your office you've briefed me that if you approve this don't it's not about this project it's about you're going to approve a future land use that's tied to that land and if you do that some future developer they could sell that property tomorrow and some future developer could come in there and they're not going to build the daycare center they're going to build the monstrosity of the universe that's going to destroy Tampa. I mean, that is every single briefing we get. So what I'm trying to do is, how do we as a government inject common sense in this so that we can tie this so that we can actually get what we're bargaining for without the catastrophic impact that you present every time? It's the legal bind that we're in. I mean, I'm not, and it's true. What you brief us is factually, legally correct. So what I'm trying to do is, fix the process so that we can eliminate those risk factors. So with that being said, I mean, the motion basically says y'all come back with a plan on December 17th.

So I'm sorry, your other part of your motion was to... look at increasing the application fee. So it's not just the application fee. Application fee for amendment to the comp plan is relatively low. Oh, that's what I'm saying.

I want to increase all the fees because we are undercharging for comprehensive comp plan updates.

But it's more staff time that's going to have to be dedicated to maintaining these.

Fees should reflect the actual cost of doing this.

Again, David, hey, I would If the council does decide, I think we would need time to figure out any procedures to figure out what the cost would be because currently this is not within the framework.

I understand it's a process. This would just be this and then of course that fee structure would have to probably be continued because I understand it's a lengthy process to do that. I agree with that. But I think we do need to evaluate our fee structures on comp plan amendments because I think right now we're undercharging for the staff time because I think our staff takes a lot of time and energy

doing these compound amendments i don't believe the fee structure even comes close to compensating the city for the amount of money it costs us one other um if you allow me to the um you know while you're dealing with these um issues about particular sites and that it could when we reviewed this you know when you were giving your example of like well they only want the daycare but the land use allows you know whatever you know again that tower that you kind of on your scenario talked about wouldn't have to always come back to you all just because the land use and you all know this just because the land use sets it out there's all these other parameters compatibility with the development around it Um, all things like that. Neighborhood input.

You're absolutely right. But the problem is that Susan briefs us every time this goes in perpetuity long, long when I'm dead ground and daisies are growing on my grave, that future land use forever. So that's one of the, what we're trying to do is close that door so that we don't have that future opportunity. Cause you just don't know what the next generation of people that are sitting in these seats are gonna do.

Well, what my, I was trying to get was though it, you know, you would create a PD and a text amendment. There's no prohibition on someone five years later coming in and going, I have this PD flu text that gave me a hundred thousand square feet, but now I want 150,000 square feet. And if there's a gap there, there would be a different city council. You know, some members might be different that may have different opinions than what currently council's opinions are. So it, It doesn't, I wouldn't say it closes the door, it does create another layer, but there's still, you know, people can always come in and ask for another amendment, just like a map amendment.

I think this is staff bureaucracy getting in the way of common sense. Councilwoman Hurtek, Councilman Maniscalco, and Councilman Carlson.

I could not disagree more. I just couldn't disagree more.

It doesn't shock me.

No, it doesn't. It shouldn't. Because these are the rules the state of Florida has put upon us. Well, you're anti-development. Excuse me. I'm anti-development. Yeah. that is not at all what i'm saying we are we have to allow people to do what they can with their own property like we can't reduce that i i just i don't see how in the world that you're going to create something that doesn't exist unless you're going to go through the state of florida to do it i just i don't just i don't agree with this and it's just it doesn't make any sense to me uh if the entire point of future land use is to be broad enough that people can do multiple things under a land use. We're not going to be able to save every structure. We're not gonna be able to save everything. Not everything is meant for every scenario. And I think that sometimes you just, Sometimes it doesn't work. And sometimes it does. And if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but we can't circumvent and create a whole new rule for those one or two times that it doesn't work. So I just respectfully disagree. I mean, others, others may not, but I do.

Councilman, what does the County do when it comes to plan developments? tied to comp plan amendments? Do they have a different process or is it all based on the same?

It's very similar to what the process is currently. They do have some different major mods and minor mods, but there is no PD flu category. All their land uses set out maximums that some require a pd like light industrial plan you have to do a pd there's no euclidean that's permitted but none there's no categories that you know are site specific okay thanks yeah councilman carlson i just think we should call the question and then you you can carry this on offline and then they can come back with feedback from us and then we can when it comes back um we can decide whether we like it or not okay

Call the question.

Thank you. You've got the same haircut.

But what I'm saying is this.

You know, we only have a certain amount of land left. I mean, we don't have 10 million acres left. We have three or four percent. That's what I've been told. I don't know how true it is. So, I mean, the city of Tampa already has, the city is not there, but more likely you know when you're looking at some plan or you're developing some plan that you can't go into a residential district and say, I'm going to build this by the crossroads in the middle of the main street. You can't do it. The land's not zoned for that. So there's areas that have pretty well been already subdivided intentionally by the past history and current events that hold you to be what it is. We used to have three industrial areas. We're down to one, and more likely we're gonna lose that one. So what I'm saying is that it's a very hard job that you have. I understand that. And it's a very difficult job that we have. Well, we're both in the same boat, and you know what? It's sinking. Because now, on the other side of the airport, I see the other day a building going up. It's almost constructed now. All wood, four stories. And I tell myself, wow, one match would do what to this building? We're living in a different society. Nature has changed. The environment we created the wrong way. It was going pretty good until we as human beings started doing things. And now what we have, what? Enormous amount of flooding, enormous amount of areas where you have the whole country, the whole world. Look at Nepal, look at different things now in different parts of this country and in Japan and everything else. You have things you never had before. Look how many. Areas in the north, you had snow in June, give me a break. All these things were happening because we didn't let nature do its job. We did what we wanted to do and now we're paying the price. It's not gonna get better. That's my opinion. So what you're trying to do is the right thing. I'm saying that certain areas are restricted just for residential. Certain areas are restricted for certain heights. Certain areas you can't do heights unless you have a lot of money. You can go over to the airport and do what the hell you want. But these are the things that I see that are difficult for you and for us. So we're both in the same boat. So we're trying to fix something here that may be half broken. And we're trying to do things that are necessary, but we don't take an advantage what we had before you didn't have a traffic problem. And you can correct me anytime you want. It's taking 10 minutes to go from here to a certain place, not take 25 minutes to go from here to a certain place. And the more we built, and the less transportation we have, we don't have zero, we have zero, in my mind, we have zero transportation other than the automobile. You can correct me again. We don't have no rail. We have a streetcar that's been going the same way now for at least 20 years. We have ways to improve it, And we're trying to do that, but how are we gonna get? We used to cost a million dollars, now it's 25 million dollars. So it's very difficult to be on your side and in this side at the same time. So I understand what you're trying to do, and it has to get a little bit better. We don't even take into consideration, when you go back 20 years ago, how many mental illnesses you find in the street? Very few. Now it's either a habit that everybody's crazy, or they're saying they're crazy so they can get some money somewhere. It is what it is, let's face it. So these are the things that we're up against. Mental stress, everybody's full of it. Years ago, we didn't have any. So something invented somebody that somebody doesn't know what's going on. But I understand the position you're in, that's all.

So Susan Johnsonville's legal department. So you're asking us to come back with an ordinance.

I'm going to read it again, so if you want me to.

Is it to come back with an ordinance?

I'll read it.

Okay. Go ahead. Okay.

So direct the legal department planning commission and other necessary city staff to create a process that will allow comprehensive plan map amendments to be tied to plan development rezonings, along with increasing the comprehensive plan map and text amendment fees and return. I initially said December 17th, but hearing your concern, I changed that to February 18th, 2027. So February 18th, 2027.

Okay, can I make a friendly amendment to separate those two? Because fee structure is...

I'd rather not because it kind of rides because, again, as David said, this would end up creating a process that would increase the cost.

Okay, so I have a motion and a second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Nay.

Motion carried with Hartek and Miranda voting no.

Thank you. And can I just... I just want to clarify, I'm voting yes, and I seconded the first time, just partly out of courtesy and curiosity to see what you all come up with, not necessarily because I'll vote yes in the final things.

Thanks. Okay. Gosh, I thought that was going to be so easy. Okay, very good. Okay, now we're going from easy to easier. Oh, we took 46 off. Yeah, we received and filed 46. That's a change. We did not need that. Okay. So what item is it? I've got to back up, back up, back up. Item number 36, if I've got this correct, right?

Can I ask a process question?

Go ahead. so we we have a rule that we're supposed to hear things over 20 million two weeks apart so are we just hearing it today yeah so yeah just for for council and for folks in the audience there's no uh sub unless unless a council person makes a motion on something subsequent to this the way this is today 36 we're going to hear 36 through 39 together The way this works today is this is the first reading. On the 17th of September, we'll come back for the second time around, and that's when actually a decision, that's the decision point. So we're gonna hear from staff. We'll have council discussion, but wait, there's more. On September 17th, we'll come back for a vote, okay? And is everybody clear on that? Mr. Shelby.

Mr. Chairman, these are group doesn't, As one through four, items 36, 37, 38, 39. Correct. I suspect they're interrelated. Does that mean that they are all going to be held and continued over to the 17th?

Yes, that is the intent.

Okay, thank you.

Unless anybody objects. Okay, very good. So this is presentation time. So we're hearing 36, 37, 38, 39. This is your bite of the apple. Sir, start with your name. All right, Brad Baird.

Administrator for Infrastructure Mobility. Good afternoon. So you've already covered about upper discussion, upper approval. This is items 36 through 39. We have our team here in support, including Brandon Campbell, Director of Mobility, as well as our contractor and our senior engineer that are here in support. I could get the presentation to be pulled up. Okay, first I'll cover total costs of the project back in January of 2026. We had an estimated total cost of 98.3 million. and total current costs equal 100.4 million and that is comprised of design at 7.7 million and GMP or guaranteed maximum price of 92.7 million for a total of 100.4 million. Two things changed since January. The existing triple box culvert in Bayshore at Howard is 30 feet shorter than what was shown on the record drawings. So that means we need to extend that triple box by 30 feet to get under southbound Bayshore Boulevard. And that includes bypassing of an existing 42 inch, um, it's actually a 48 inch sewer that was lined with a 42 inch polyethylene pipe. And that is a gravity pipe, uh, that acts as a siphon under this triple box. Um, all for a total of an additional 2.3 million. So that. is almost exactly the difference between 98.3 and 92 point, I mean 100.4. The second thing that changed is, as you all know, we have added a business assistance team. And that was added to ensure that we are doing everything we can to minimize the impacts to the businesses on South Howard. Um, and, and on swan. Um, so we will cover that in a little bit. So, uh, next slide please. I guess I'm supposed to do that for the assist. Okay. There we go. This, this is the proposed flooding solution. Its primary feature is a 10 by 10 gravity box culvert terminating at the AMI pond. It includes secondary pipelines that connect the Selman Expressway and also a 72 inch pipeline that connects Parkland Estates. This is a legacy project that will serve other neighborhoods in the future that flood east and west of Howard Avenue. You cannot do that with a force main. If you were to build a force main alternative, you're locked in, locked into what you can tie into that. So I want to cover the AMI pond. So going back to the AMI pond, I would like to clear up a few misconceptions. First, it is a pond, not a vault. So it has a dirt bottom. It is not silted in. You've heard that the AMI pumping station hasn't worked in 10 years. The existing pumping station works. In fact, our computer modeling system called SCADA shows that the two pumps at this station automatically turned on and turned off 177 times over the last 90 days. It works just fine. So the statement that this pump station hasn't worked in 10 years is blatantly false. It pumps water to the Cleveland system to the west and outfalls three miles away to Old Tampa Bay. The Cleveland system, however, is currently undersized and overburdened. So, you've heard a lot about our design storm. It's a five year, eight hour storm, which is equivalent of 5.3 inches. It just so happens, well, let me back up. This level storm is the city's standard engineering design storm. And it's for which we design other projects for So what does this mean? It's equivalent of a five point three inches of rain over an eight hour period It just so happens. We had a storm with identical characteristics with five point four inches of rain on August 1st 2015 What did it look like it looked like? It had flooded homes, vehicles, road closures, resident displacement, no hospital access for a period of time, slowed emergency response, two bus service route interruptions, Route 14 and Route 19, lost business revenue on Swan Avenue, and of course, costly repairs. But fast forward to a month ago, We had a storm that was smaller, a smaller storm, only a two inch storm with shorter duration. This is what Parkland Estates looked like one month ago. So what does this investment of $100 million deliver? 95% flood reduction in Palmasia Pines and Parkland Estates. Yes, in Palmasia Pines. So you've heard many, many times it does not provide, phase one does not provide flood relief to Palmasia Pines. That is false. It does provide significant relief to Palmasia Pines. No structural flooding for the design storm in either palmacy of pines or Parkland estates. So, and approximately 230 homes, you've heard different numbers. You've heard two 22, 25 to 35. It's two 30 plus or minus homes and businesses would have been spared by Milton. And if you recall, we had in the neighborhood of 330 homes that flooded, homes and businesses, that flooded during building. All right, and this is where I need Brandon's help. So this is before on the left and after the 10 by 10 box. And he's going to pause at five hours And that is when the flooding has peaked. You can see on the right, no structures flooded for our design storm. On the left, it peaks at about 96 units, I'll say, because as you can see, that's not 96 red dots or red squares. So there's obviously more units in each of those squares than just one. So if I could have Brandon, uh, fast forward again and stop it at eight hours, the flooding is completely gone in, uh, Palmacy of pines and Parkland estates. Whereas in the existing condition, there are still a handful of structures that remain flooded. And of course the streets, um, have flooding of, of, of still over two feet at that point.

Brad, can I, for clarity, because I'd make sure we're all speaking the same language. When you say 96 or 220, is it structures? Is it homes? Because we have a lot of multifamily, and that was in public comment. We talked about that a lot. Townhouses, multifamily, businesses. Can you give us the common language of what you're referring to? It is all of the above. Okay, but when you say 96 what? What does that mean? Is that a structure or is it? Residence. Multi-family so if there's businesses there's four individual family homes in a building Is that one structure or is that for four we're counting as four?

Okay, so yes for okay for for individual and you know tonight.

It's not 96 structures It's 96 homes or businesses 96 residences or businesses, okay?

Thank you for that clarification. And then if you'll run it out, you'll see that on the left, which is the existing condition that the flooding has dissipated by hour 12. And that is what we're seeing in reality out in these neighborhoods.

Can I start?

You can do that.

The South Howard Flood Relief Project is a major city drainage project aimed at fixing the chronic flooding we see in Parkland Estates, Palmacy of Pines, and the nearby neighborhoods. The root of the problem is pretty simple. These neighborhoods sit very, very low. And because of that low-lying topography, they are especially prone to flooding. These neighborhoods are also shaped like giant bowls. Heavy rain hits, water rushes in, fills up fast, and doesn't drain the way it should because the current pipes there are way too small. City engineers and independent experts are designing this system to handle a serious storm with about five inches of rain over eight hours. That's enough water to fill the iconic Rivergate Tower. And when all that water has nowhere to go, it can cause a lot of damage. So what's the fix? The proposed solution uses a massive 10 foot by 10 foot box culvert system capable of moving roughly 20 million gallons of stormwater every single hour. Think of it as a mile long underground river designed to pull all that excess water out of these neighborhoods. The system would start near South Howard and Bayshore, head north, turn onto Swan Avenue, and then continue north into Palmacia Pines by connecting directly to the ponds beneath the HCA Florida South Tampa Hospital parking deck. That pond would essentially become a giant inlet, pulling excess flood water out of the neighborhood and sending it south where it can drain properly. And remember the sheer volume of water we're talking about, a beer can building worth. This system is designed to move it out of the neighborhoods fast before it can cause serious damage. This approach isn't new. In fact, it's tried and true. Similar projects across the city, including at Henderson and Dale Mabry, are already proving how effective this type of drainage system can be. Bottom line, less flooding means safer streets for everyday drivers and first responders. Fewer homes at risk of catastrophic damage, lower insurance costs, and real peace of mind for families and businesses who just want to know their investments are better protected. The South Howard Flood Relief Project.

Sorry about that.

Deja vu moment.

You guys just want to see it once, right? So why does this work? This slide is very important. So these two neighborhoods reside in bowls. I think that was covered in the video. The elevation of the bottom of the bowls is roughly 15, 16 feet. Palm Sea of Pines, 16. Parkland Estates is roughly 15, so 15, 16 feet. So between the bowls and the bay water at mean tide, you're talking about 16 feet of fall. So that is a lot of elevation to work with that we usually don't have that much. So that water flowing full will flow at 7 feet per second. OK? Even during Helene, when the bay rose to elevation 8, these two neighborhoods would have drained very easily. In fact, we have modeled this condition. At 8 feet elevation, the velocity decreases from 7 feet per second to 6.5 feet per second, or less than 10% reduction. And the flow decreases from 650 cubic feet per second down to 600 cubic feet per second, also less than 10% reduction. So you have heard people say that with any significant storm surge, and that by the way is the biggest one on record, eight feet, this alternative will not work. This is not true. Simple physics say otherwise. It will flow like a river. very fast out that outfall. Let's talk about success stories. When we passed the, when the city council passed the stormwater improvement assessment in 2016, we had four large projects on that map. and we had about 100 smaller projects showing us smaller yellow dots. All four projects are completed to this day. You can see the flooding that existed on Upper Peninsula, which is Henderson, Dale, Mabry, problem fixed. Southeast Seminole Heights, problem fixed. Rome Avenue, which was fixed by the Cypress Street project, fixed. Lower Peninsula had some flooding, and this is showing a picture of the pond down there, but had some flooding, problem was fixed. In all four cases, we used box culverts to fix the problem, just like we're proposing here. So, because that was addressed earlier, you can't build this project with, a trench box and install the box culvert. That is not true. We used a trench box in all four cases. This trench box will be 20 by 24 feet long. It will move in 22 foot sections so that it has a one foot overlap on each side. Some of the renderings that the business alliance has shown, it showed sheet piling. right next to the buildings in the right of way that is not what we are proposing it is not necessary the the better method of construction is with the trench blocks it's tried and true and um and we that is exactly what we're proposing brand maybe we could pause there for some questions i know i have a couple

Yeah, I'm almost finished. I'm almost finished. Can we? Because you're going into the business assistant plan now, right?

Yeah.

So why don't we pause here because it's on the engineering and the structure. I think it would be good. Okay. I mean, I can take questions now. I think it would be a logical time.

I would rather wait until the end, but sure.

Yeah. I mean, I think it's a logical time because otherwise we would get convoluted between the different components of this. Okay. Do you want to start or do you want to start? I'll start.

You go ahead. So a couple of observations, you know, through this journey, I saw a presentation. I don't know if it was Mr. B day or if it was Mr. Campbell, but there was a slide that was up here that had a report that was done by the city of Tampa in like 1983, 1987. I remember 83. And there were two from the 80s. And I think it was specific to maybe Palmacea Pines and how, you know, like you said, this is a bowl and the water has nowhere to go. Are you familiar with that? Do you recall that? I'm just going by memory.

I recall a slide this week that the Business Alliance showed where the study started in 1983 with both Buckley Shoe and Jernigan. Is that what you're referring to?

Maybe. I mean, I saw it here during a city council meeting. Maybe it was somebody from the public that had shown it. Yes. the city has known that this area floods and for 40 something years it's continued you know allowing building um for the sake of making money not on the city's part but just you can't stop the construction I've mentioned this before. I went to school at the school that I think it's closed right there on Swan and Howard used to be St. John's Greek Orthodox, right? And when I was in school in the 90s, the access off Armenia going to Swan into Parkland Estates was open. Now it's closed and you see the ornamentation. Did that have any effect closing that entrance on where the water flows? Because this is going back to the 90s. Did that create any issue with anything?

Not to my knowledge. don't know if Brandon has any more on that, but not to my knowledge.

Okay. Cause I remember, you know, during heavy, uh, rains when I was a student there, which was 92 to 98, we had a football field where we would have, you know, PE phys phys ed and it, when it rained hard, it would fill like a, like a lake, but it went down. But what I don't remember is the area around it flooding? And I asked my mother yesterday, I said, when you took me to school 30 years ago, did that area ever flood? And she said, no, I don't remember. Henderson and Dale Mabry, everybody remembers. So the question I'm getting to is fast forward to, I got here in the spring of 2015. And then in 2015, we had major flooding everywhere. When did the flooding in Parkland Estates start? has it been going on forever or was it 2015? Cause I see a lot of photos and I've heard from the public 2015. What has it always been a thing or is it something that's 11 years old?

Okay. That, um, great question. And if I could unpack that, so I am told, um, so that flooding in those two neighborhoods has happened since the 1960s.

Okay.

Parkland estates much worse than pharmacy of pines. However, since that time, obviously there has been a lot of impervious parking lots, uh, residents built businesses built that add to that runoff. Right. They are required by code to retain the first half inch of rain. Right. Obviously, these storms, just the last three that we've seen, are more than a half an inch. So that additional to the half inch is going to result in more flooding, yes. And I do want to say one more thing, because there has been a lot of questions about this project morphing over the years or changing over the years. It has. It started out as a Parkland Estates project. stormwater relief project Parkland State stormwater relief project and I can get you the exact time when that was identified 11 I think it's 11 years ago then you know I mentioned the smaller yellow dots at the south part of South Howard on hills and two other streets we've received flooding complaints And those can be tied in in the future. Obviously we don't have the funding for that right now. Right? So that would be a future assessment increase, uh, that we could tie those in. So between the six small dots and the original Parkland states, that's how this project came to be.

Okay. So the project, if it is approved on this current schedule and looking at the construction schedule, which you're going to get to the project begins at Bayshore and Howard and it starts working its way up north I see here West Swan Avenue intersection October 2029 Parkland Estates in May 2030 and then substantial completion so between October and September of 29 to 30 is when we're getting to the the bulk of it what happens to the neighborhoods from now until then they just continue to flood for the next Three years.

Yes, but we tie in, we tie in, um, immediately adjacent to Howard as we move north.

Okay. As we move north, we tie in those, those, but still that water with a heavy afternoon storm really has nowhere to go until we get up to that meeting point. Let's say Howard and Swan. So. with the, what is it, the AMI pond and everything that's existing there in the Zom pond and all that, have we dredged it, cleaned it, made sure that the system is completely clear? Because of course, it rained, what, last Sunday or the Sunday before, it's been pretty bad. it does flood as we've seen in pictures the water eventually goes somewhere why is it slow moving because it's such a fast amount of rainfall or do we have blockages in the entire system what what i mean the water is eventually going to go away it's not going to evaporate it's going to flow out but what's the issue there uh brandon campbell mobility director

So a couple of things in response to your comments. Let me first go back to, you asked about the intersection of Parkland Boulevard and Swan and the closure of that. We do have inlets there. Any impact to the stormwater system is negligible from that closure. So I just wanted to make sure that we closed that loop. With respect to the AMI pond, We had it surveyed and compared it to the as-built and there's not a current need for it to be dredged. It is at the elevation that the as-built said that it would be. As Brad mentioned, that pump is still continuing to work. We've got our SCADA reports that show, he said I think 177 times the two pumps had been actuated over the last 90 days. So we know that in itself it covers the last four flood events that were mentioned in public comments today and that have gotten some additional attention. There are some pipes in there. It's not much. There's not really a spine down Howard, which is of course what we're looking at now. The route that the business alliance proposed has some small pipes. Those are undersized. There is some drainage that goes through those pipes. there are pathways for the the water to go of course some of it of course uh soaks into the ground as well uh where where it's in on a pervious surface but it's it's under capacity and that's why we need to build additional capacity that's what the target of this project is okay and then last question may 2028 on the schedule the csx crossing that has an existing box culvert right yes okay

I know CSX, it's complicated to negotiate and talk with them. What did I hear earlier today regarding the need to, was it close off that track there? How long was it? Four to six weeks? Do we have permission from them? Have they said it's okay?

We do not. And that's why in the GMP, that is not included in the GMP.

Okay.

Right now in the GMP, we have a 72-inch microtunnel with a 60-inch carrier pipe that will sister up with the existing 5x10 box culvert to provide that flow. The problem with that is you have to build two massive structures on either side to tie it back into the 10x10 box.

Will we be taking a 10x10 culvert to a 5x10 at the CS section? To a 5x10 and a 60-inch.

that we will be drilling as a microtop.

And that won't create a bottleneck where the, you know, since we're doing a gravity system, that the flow of the water is so intense that by the time it hits the CSX track, it's going to start backing up if it's too much water?

So a slight bottleneck there, yes, because, you know, obviously a 5 by 10 culvert, is 50 square feet, 10 by 10 is 100 square feet, right? So that's half. And then the 60 inch interceptor would provide additional square feet. So the way it's proposed now in the GMP is a bottleneck. However, and the reason we haven't touted this as a solution Is because we have not started meeting with top brass of CSX and that is going to take some some months To do that, but the proposal would be To close those tracks for four to six weeks handle the delivery of the one Person that's at the end of the spur the one business that would need deliveries Kimmons would handle those deliveries with trucks and And if CSX were to give us the approval to close it for four to six weeks, we would then build a 10 by 10 box under or through CSX tracks in return for providing them brand new tracks. and new control panel, new arms, um, and, and then re reopen it. Therefore there would not be a bottleneck.

Okay.

Now I know we don't know if CSX would be amenable to that. So that's why that's not in a GMP. One last thing, really, really preliminary estimates say that cause cause that right now is $6 million for that micro tunnel and the two structures. It's not quite $6 million. But we estimate that we could save $3 million. I know the person that spoke here earlier said, well, that would cost more money. That's not true.

Okay, so the water eventually will then dump out at Bayshore.

At Bayshore. Just that section would also be a 10x10.

So if you live in Tampa, you know that during heavy storms, bay shore will flood and the water will come over. If it's high tide and we have a situation like that, based on the gravity system, is the water pressure flowing down at whatever elevation you had shown, 19 feet or 18, is that enough pressure that it'll push the water out into the bay or will the system back up? And I know you can do the analogy of if you have a hose and you put it in a swimming pool, you can feel the water coming out, but is it enough pressure in a system like this where the water will come out or is it just going to back up and stay until back up and stay in the neighborhood until it's low tide and it's, you know, it flows out naturally. What happens?

So if I get CTV to pull up the, the slide that, uh, thank you. So again, we have 16 feet of fall from the bottom of the bowls all the way to the bay on a mean tide, right? If we, Um, so that if that 10 by 10 box is flowing full on our design storm, it will flow full again. That's seven feet per second. It will not, um, preclude that flow from happening, uh, happening. It will only reduce it 7%. So it doesn't back it up at all. You still have 93% of that flow going to the bay.

And will there be pumps or this is just the natural?

No, this is gravity.

That's it. So there's no backup just in case, you know, the water pressure is so much and there's nowhere to go. Okay.

So if it's flowing full, it's essentially acting as a pressure pipe.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

Okay. You're welcome.

Water finds its way.

Okay. Councilwoman Young, followed by Miranda.

Hello, okay, a few questions, I'm gonna try to stay in order. So for the first slide, when you had the total cost of 2026 versus January versus where we are now, and you said the jump in the price was because we added the business assistance team in larger pipes, is that correct?

That was the second issue, but the main issue was the extension of the Bayshore triple box over. That was the 2.3 million. The business assistance, of course, is over the length of the project, which is three years and 10 months.

Okay. Now for the next slide, we had flooding solution and you had mentioned You said, could you put that map up? It's the second, I think it's the second slide where it says flooding solution.

Going back.

Yeah, keep going. Yes. That slide? Yes. Okay. If we draw a line right where you see HCA Florida South Tampa Hospital, so at the top you have Palma Sia Pines, at the bottom you see we have Parkland Estates. The per your legend where the green is, it says future phase storm sewers. is that, and it's mainly in the Palmacia Pines area, so when you say future phase storm sewers, is that a part of, like if this project is approved, are you gonna start working on where the green is, or is that for the future?

That is for the future, but again, there's an existing undersized system there with 12-inch and 18-inch pipes. And that's why phase one provides a significant relief for palmacea pines now. The future phase two is to upsize those 12-inch and 18-inch pipes, and that would be a future improvement assessment increase.

So... Is the future phase storm sewers, is that something that you feel is it needs to be, like it has to be done, or is it you think what's going to happen in phase one will be significant enough?

It needs to be done in the future to fully realize all flooding that's happening in the streets for our design storm. So in other words, phase one, it solves the structural flooding in those two neighborhoods and it reduces significantly the roadway flooding. Upsizing those pipes in a future phase, one, can be done piecemeal. It doesn't have to be done all at once. We can take the worst of the worst and do those first. But two, that would solve all the flooding in Palmasillo Pines.

So when we say future, how far out are you thinking?

It would be after we finish our a watershed master plan that's ongoing right now. And then that decision would come back to city council as to what projects are in that plan. Obviously, palmacy of pines would be included, right? And, um, how much we want to increase that improvement assessment to cover those projects. In other words, we'll have a list of projects. How far down the list do you want to go to draw the line?

So you said, when we're finished with the watershed master plan, do you know when we'll be finished with that?

So you want, did you want to, did you want to speak to that?

So council, uh, UND stormwater services director, We are currently at midpoint, at the midpoint of watershed master plan. But as far as the South Howard Flooding Relief Project, because it's currently ongoing, the planning effort is being done already for the future phases in Palm City and Pines. And as we, if this one is moving forward, when the construction started, we can start the design work for the north portion, that's the future phases of Palm City of Pines. Not necessarily we have to wait until the citywide master plan is being done. So we can potentially save some time. When the construction phase one is ongoing, we can move forward with design future work for the Palm City of Pines portion.

So we don't really have like a timeframe for the future?

Not yet.

Okay. So for the, do you have a call? Do you know how much it would be? Do you have an idea?

We discuss internally. We can either do the design-build contract or we can even use our internal staff. It's kind of ranges between, I would say, 20-some million dollars to 40-some million dollars in that range.

Okay, but what you're saying is with phase one, we're already going to see some significant flood relief. So if this future phase storm sewer is, let's say, not completed in 10 years, it would be okay?

I can speak to that briefly. So the video that Brad showed of the duration of the storm, that model, shows what we would expect with just what we're building with this particular GMP. So the reduced duration of the street flooding, the reduced severity of the flooding that actually gets into the structures, that's all phase one. When it comes to potential additional future storm laterals, future phases, we can choose what we want to do when based on specific impact of those specific pipes. Brad mentioned, we don't necessarily have to build those all at once. We may even be able to do some of those with our in-house construction team. I don't know that just yet. We also, as Yuan mentioned, we can work on design through this process of constructing phase one. So we don't have to skip a beat on it. We just have not programmed a construction effort for these additional future phases.

For the CSX, the cost, I don't know if I missed it or not, is there a cost to us if we get that permission to do that, to close that for four to six weeks?

Not a cost to get the permission. Like I said, it's close to $6 million the way we have it in the GMP now. Very, very preliminary estimates show we can save in the $3 million range to do that. And that's what we plan on doing later this year or early next year. If this is approved, we would start those discussions with CSX.

If I can add to the discussion on the CSX, the two pipe solution is what is in the guaranteed maximum price. And it's what is modeled in everything that we have presented to you all. If we're able to do a 10 by 10 box there instead, it would only be because it is a cheaper solution, an improvement on the current design, and that we get that permission from CSX. It's only a benefit. If we cannot work that out because CSX does not give us the permission to do so, or if for whatever reason we decide, hey, this isn't the cost savings that we thought it was going to be, I can't quite imagine why that would be, but if we came into that scenario and said, hey, that actually is not the benefit that we thought it was going to be, this two-pipe solution that is in the guaranteed maximum price will work. I just want to make sure that it's clear. It may not be the absolute best in terms of how it flows, but it works, and it is exactly what we need and what we have modeled and designed for.

Thanks for chairman, you know, I said keep listening and listening and I try to realize what how and when and where What size are the pipes you have there now?

For the 10-byte. Oh, what size do we have?

They're just the pipes that you have on the ground in in Going north-south mr. Meniscalco stated that 30 years ago. He was in school and I don't think he's that old anyway and But number one, when he stated that, my mind started working. What was the population then? What was the population 50 years ago? How much concrete have you laid down since 50 years ago from the expressway this way, south? Water does not flow north, only in the St. Johns River. So we're not near the St. Johns River. And we have a problem. And the problem was we created our own damn problem. When you look at the houses around that neighborhood, how many building permits do you have in Parkland Estates? I would say very few. How many do you have in Palmesia Pines? An awful lot more. I was here then. I understand what's happening. The population wasn't what it is today. The pipes are not of age. And you have 30 years or 60 years of growth that wasn't anticipated when you built the pipes 100 years ago, 50 years ago, or 80 years ago. So therefore the problem, the one that was in office then did it because it was right at that time because the pipes or the flow was adequate. However, population has changed in the last 30 years in Tampa. And it's gonna change continually in Tampa. And when you were back in the 70s, I could drive the streets here in downtown Tampa, not even looking where I was going, zigzagging everywhere from left, north, east, and south, and never hit a human or a car. I couldn't even hit a streetcar because they were taken out. So it's also changed here in traffic, and it's changing there in water. Why? Because it's called success. People came down because they love the sunshine. We only have two seasons in Florida, summer and Christmas. That's why they come down. Let's be realistic about it. So what I'm saying is that in these things, at the time that the pipes were put in, met the population it needed for the cause. That is gone. Now we also have a lot more coming with nature. Like I said, nature, we had treated it like a stepchild, and now it's getting even with us. You have to understand where we're at, all of us. The cost is expensive, but what's the cost if you don't do it?

Yeah, so to answer your question on pipe sizes, there's at least five different size pipes that I know of, and I'm sure there's probably a couple more that either go south and end up at Rubidoux and Bayshore. or go west through the Cleveland system that I mentioned earlier. I know there's 36. There's 36-inch diameter circular. There's some elliptical pipe. There's a little bit larger pipe in the Cleveland system, all of which are undersized, seriously undersized, as opposed to what we need to move for the design storm. So if that answers your question.

I'm just going to close by saying this. I live by myself. If I had my family with me, my chances of having a backup in the sink or in the toilet would be five times greater than it is now because there's only one there, not five people there. It's the same thing. You gotta use basic logic and enforce it and think about what's happening, how it got to be what it is. And that's all I'm gonna say. You need less fiber. Thank you very much.

Chairman, if I may, I still have 10 slides. Let's finish this line of questioning, please. Okay.

Councilman Vera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A quick question. I hear a lot in social media allegations, et cetera, that this project's going to eat up all of our stormwater funds. How do you all respond to that, including from the 2016 assessment?

Good afternoon, Council. Dennis Rejero, Chief Financial Officer. I have heard those two, a couple of remarks before I put on what I think will be a helpful visual aid. This assessment in the last decade has collected about $130 million. we anticipate over the next 20 years it's gonna collect another $360 million. So that's a 30 year span of almost half a billion dollars. And let me find the slide. It's a little sooner than I anticipated.

You know, if this goes into the future slides, I think we'll go with Brad and say, let's hold off on that answer. You want to hold off?

OK. I have no objection to that. Yeah, I can wait. So yeah, I can wait until after.

Yeah, listen, I was questioning now just this engineering part that we're talking about and what we're looking at here. I've got a few questions. Do you have anything else?

Yeah, you know what? With regards to engineering, I guess, if you will, So we hear that this, and pardon me, I got back from Missouri last night like at 11.30, so I'm tired. But we hear about immediate fixes versus long-term fixes. This project, if approved, you're looking at about a four-year timeline, correct? This is a project. If approved, you're hearing it's about a four-year timeline, correct?

Before my time here.

This project here, we're talking about a four-year timeline.

Yes. In earnest, the last 11 years. But yes, the first study was done in 1983.

Start a project to completion of project. When you first put a shovel in the ground, when are you done?

Three years and ten months. Okay, so about four years or so. Is there any quicker fix than this to what's happening in Palmacia Pines and Parkland Estates? There is no quicker fix, correct, from what I hear?

No.

All the other alternatives, and I get to that in another slide, but all the other alternatives that are looked at could get there quicker. However, they don't. they don't move the water that needs to be moved.

Okay, great. Yeah, and I'll save everything for afterwards. Thank you, sir.

So trying to restrict it to just what we're talking about here. The CSX culvert, maybe I misunderstood between the presentation you provided and the information that Brandon just discussed. The CSX culvert existing condition, that is what's included in the GMP. Is that what I'm hearing?

Yes, so if CTTV could put up the slide that's actually on this computer here. There it goes. So you can see the purple line that's under CSX that is sort of in the middle of that page. That is the existing 5x10 box culvert under CSX. Because it's a 5x10 box and we're building a 10x10 along the corridor, it needs additional capacity. So to achieve that, the plan that we know that we can accomplish is to add the sister pipe that Brad mentioned that's here in red. Now there is a possibility that if we are able to get that permission from CSX, we could actually just build the 10 by 10 all the way through. That would be a value add and it would be a cost deduct. But as shown, this is what's designed, this is what has been modeled for, this is what we know will work and that we can accomplish.

Okay, so let me understand. So right now there's a five by five. I'm sorry, no, five by five by 10, which is 50% of what we would anticipate for the rest of the project buried underneath the ground. The 60-inch pipe you're referring to, is that included in the $100,441,000? Yes. So using the existing 5x10, adding a 60-inch pipe is included in the proposed GMP?

Correct.

Okay. Can we put a 60-inch pipe underneath CS extracts without their permission?

not without their permission, but I don't know if you want to, or actually, I don't know if, let me preface my first, let me, let me say this.

And then you guys answer my accusations. How in the world did we get to August? Whatever it is, or what, what is the date? September, whatever it is, September 3rd, 2026, without having these discussions with CSX, because we have been going on for years.

Okay, we have had discussions with CSX staff, and this is what's approved by staff. And again, it is a 72-inch microtunnel that's a casing pipe, essentially, and the carrier pipe is 60-inch.

Okay, so we do have permission to go underneath their tracks with a new pipe.

We don't have a permit or permission in writing from CSX. We don't have a permit for that.

Well, we either do or we don't.

At that time. At this time.

We either, we do.

That crossing is still.

So all we can, Brad, if I'm hearing you correctly, all we can count on is the five by 10. No. So when you come to us in two weeks. All we can count on is what is currently there, which is the 5 by 10, which cuts water flow in half.

Yuanli Stonewater Services Director, we discussed with CSX in the earlier stage of this project, and the best case scenario, they are open to the open cut. But the worst case is going to be trenchless. And as we are currently putting our GMP together, And similarly, we have the Southeast Seminole Heights. We have the similar situation. We applied for the permit, and we were granted with the permit with no interruption. So it's in the discussion right now. We have the coordination meeting with CSX.

So this is something that I'm going to have to have you guys come back with something more firm, at least for me, for one out of seven. Because I really want to provide flood relief to these neighborhoods. I really, really do. I mean, I really want to get to yes on this. I mean, strongly want to get to yes on this. You know, I've always been I've always said that I felt like the engineering was good. I've had problems with getting to that cost benefit ratio and that we're getting dangerously close to a 1.0. And if we start adding money with change orders or increased expenses for this culvert, we could end up breaking that 1.0 CRA. But Before we vote on a contract of $100 million, we need to make sure that we know what we're voting on. And I think that injecting this variable is really problematic, not knowing for sure of what the engineering will be crossing underneath those tracks.

One second, John. We'll let Kevin speak in a second. But CX, in my experience, CSX permitting takes nine months, six months minimum, but nine months to a year to obtain. We're well over a year before we get to the CSX.

Yeah, but I've got to sign a contract.

So that is typical with every CSX crossing as part of every project we've done in the last forty years. You can't get your permit until you're further enough along in the design to submit a permit.

But it seems like, again, maybe this is just blowing my mind because again I've been such a fan of the engineering of this and I've firmly bought in that this is a project that's going to be able to move the volume of water we need to move with a gravity system. I mean, you know, we've had that private conversation. I've been good at the engineering. But that's under the understanding that we have the capacity to move it all the way to the Bayshore outfall. If there's even a variable, if there's any doubt whatsoever, even if it's a the smallest amount of doubt that we're not going to be able to have the same because part of the inconvenience that's going to be caused on south howard was the upsizing of the which i support the upside sizing these culverts to be able to move that volume of water but if if there's even this much doubt that we're going to have to funnel it through a smaller hole then maybe we're not going to realize the the return on Digging this massive Canyon to put these gigantic culverts in if we're gonna funnel it out So I we've got a club I think from my opinion just one person for my opinion We've got to close that doubt of what's gonna happen with CSX.

Yeah Good afternoon John's of mine that came as contracting Let me see if I can help you. This is going to kind of feel like the chicken and the egg a little bit. It always is. The DOT has a design standard similar to FDOT. So they tell us, you want to cross under our tracks, this is what your parameters are, this is what you have to do. We've met those parameters. They won't review our permit application until we pay them money to do the permit review. Our design is ready to go to them. Once they get approval, we got approval for the project, then we could pay, I think it's $25,000 they want to do their permit review. But we meet all their design criteria that they show us. They'll have us do things, want to do groundwater analysis, want to do soil analysis. They want to make sure their track's not going to shift during the crossing. But we meet all of the criteria for them to issue a permit. legally not issue the permit, they can make it difficult, which they intend to do. It took us nine months on Harbor Island, force me to get a permit from CSX, but we got it. So in this case, that's why you're chasing, I can't tell you today we've got it. Our design meets all of their design criteria. We've talked to them on the phone. They tell us once you get the application fee into us with the money, then we can start the review process and that'll start triggering soil borings, groundwater analysis, track settlement, those type of things.

Yeah. I mean, I hear what you're saying, but I mean, if there's, if there's even within the universe that the answer could be, no, I mean, it's a hundred million dollars.

I've never seen, if you meet the DOT criteria, I've never seen him not issue a permit. They make it difficult from time to time, but they've never not issued one.

So why not just go for, why not spend that money, go for the permit and then come back and ask us for the contract.

It's probably better. Can't hold the price. It's like a nine-month deal. We get the price.

Why weren't we doing that nine months ago? this is a pretty normal procedure to have the contract in hand before you know that's a big gamble i mean even if even if it's a small chance that they say no that's a hundred million dollars is a lot of money to gamble with but a councilman can i just kind of put it in perspective for you with the so the southeast seminole high stormwater project is um unfortunately near and dear to my heart

And they had to go under I-275. So same thing. They had to wait and get permits. Yeah. And it's one of those things that, I mean, obviously you sit on the TPO. You know how impossible it is to get, well, you weren't there when we were really fighting to get CSX to talk to us about giving the tracks with Kimberly Overman and all of that. So, I mean, like we have fought, CSX is difficult, but I know this is very similar to what we had to do for 275 because they didn't close down 275. They went under it. Right. And it was like, it was wild. It was very fascinating to watch because quite a few of my neighbors couldn't get to their houses. And obviously it wasn't a Kimmons project, but it was a huge problem that Nelson had to deal with. But, but it went under the interstate. No one on the interstate got any, like no traffic stopped, but they had to, we still had to get a F dot approval to them.

I hear what you're saying again, but maybe it's because it's coming as a surprise to me and I don't like surprises because this is not something that I was briefed on or understood. We'll pivot from that for offline conversations because I have about 100,000 more questions, reference this issue alone.

I will say this. We're batting 1,000. We've never failed to get a permit from CSX.

I choose not to go to Hard Rock because I'm not a gambler. I don't like losing money. I hate losing money. I have a couple of other questions.

Chairman, if I could answer a question that went unanswered a minute ago. You said, why didn't we start this nine months ago?

CSX.

CSX. We can't. Because CSX will not accept a 30% design for a permanent application. You have to be much further along to submit that application. And in addition to that, so once we finally get to the point where the design is far enough along to submit, And we delay by months past the 90-day window from July 24th, which is when the GMP was submitted.

subcontractors may not hold their prices and prices go up so i just want to make that point i i i i understand the risk of that as well um just a couple of other questions um and really just a couple the potential of change orders so this is a gross maximum price and again we're getting really close to that ratio what are what i know i heard that i heard during the public discussions this morning about core samples and shoring up walls of constructing this culvert is the is the shoring up of these walls including the gmp or is there potential of a change order that could come through because you hit solid rock and you're not able to sink those shore structures i'm going to let john okay

John's of mine that came in contracting. Our price includes the shoring. We are using a trench box. It's the same trench box we use in Upper Peninsula and Lower Peninsula. So I was a little confused this morning when they said we couldn't use a trench box.

So if you start tomorrow or the hypothetical day of starting... and you dig on South Howard and you hit solid rock and you're not able to use the technology you thought of shoring, will that involve a cost escalation and a change order? Because you didn't anticipate that in your GMP.

Our GMP includes whatever is required. Whatever it takes. Whatever it takes.

Whatever it takes to dig that trench to be able to install those culverts. Okay. How many hours a day are you guys going to work?

Well, typically we'll run 7, 7.30 to 3.34. I have a couple of business owners along the route that have asked us to work some separate different hours, maybe involve some night work to facilitate. So, you know, typical Monday to Friday, 7, 7.30 to 4.30.

And so in your – and I'm violating my own thing about going beyond what we just talked about – Because of the business mitigation aspect of this, have you guys incorporated into your GMP an escalated work schedule on the South Howard business portion? So even like a 24-7 schedule to be able to minimize the business interruptions?

As we develop the MOT plans and start working and meet with the business owners, if we need to do 24-7, we do 24-7.

Would that include a changeover or cost escalation?

No, sir.

Okay. And I think that's all I had. Councilman Carlson.

Brad, I want to ask you a couple, a few questions. One of the things that's circulating still Despite the fact that Vic and others have explained this as the idea that council has somehow delayed this project. As I recall, we delayed for two weeks a funding request a year or two ago. But as I recall, the idea for the GMP was that it was supposed to be available in October and now it's September, so it seems to be early instead of late. Just for the record, are there other council delays that I'm aware of or are we just on the project? To my knowledge, council has never voted against anything on this. Is there anything that council delayed? I don't believe so. Brad Baird, administrator. So just for anybody in the mayor's office or in the neighborhood who keeps saying that council has somehow delayed this, please stop because they just said on the record that it's not. The other thing is we hear that this has been discussed for 10 years or 11 years. Who was that that discussed that 10 years ago? Because I wasn't on council then. Who was it that was discussing this? Was this, was this a plan that was started 10 or 11 years ago? Was it just a casual discussion that somebody had with the community?

Yes. So, so we're referring to internal because the, um, stormwater improvement assessment was approved in 2016. It was first floated in 2015 where it was not, uh, approved. And so prior to that, of course, we're working on project lists, where our needs are, where the consequences of failure are throughout the city. Many more criteria were put into that.

Sorry, so you had a whole list of priorities. Was this project promised to anybody in the neighborhood in 2015 or 2016? Do you remember?

I don't know about promise, but remember what I said earlier about it started out as a Parkland Estates project and then we did have six small yellow dots at the bottom of at the lower end of Howard Avenue that were flooding complaints adjacent to Howard Avenue. And those, over those 11 years, combined to this project.

Do you think that, did Parkland have any greater expectation over anybody else in the list that their neighborhood would be prioritized over all the other lists of all the other neighborhoods that flooded?

whether they had expectations that this would go first or I don't think so.

So somebody says that the city or city council has been delaying this for 10 or 11 years. Would that be accurate or is it just that they happen to be on a list 10 or 11 years ago?

I don't believe so unless it was this project on the table.

Sorry. It was this project on the table 10 or 11 years ago with somebody had to, cause I wasn't on council then. I don't know. Did somebody delay it 10 or 11 years ago? Was it just on a list with everybody?

I mean, we certainly had complaints in Parkland states. There's no doubt 11 years ago, 15 years ago, we had complaints on south Howard. Um,

But there are probably, you know, there's five places just in my neighborhood that flooded in these same hurricanes and people lost their houses. And the city, the mayor has not gone to visit those folks. The political director from the mayor's office has not gone to visit them. The PR people have not gone to visit them. The lawyers and the engineers from the city haven't gone to visit them. There were more than 2000 families that had serious effects to their houses. And for some reason, the mayor's office and all the staff seem not to be worried about all the other folks. And this is the problem is that we represent people throughout the city and we wanna find solutions for this neighborhood. But why is it, why is it that the mayor's office is only spending their time on one or two neighborhoods instead of the other 20 or so neighborhoods, just in South Tampa that flooded, not to mention East Tampa and North Tampa.

Um, I would categorize, I would categorize those as, as smaller projects, which we have done some in South Tampa. But for those folks, they lost their houses too.

They had water in their houses. Their pictures and videos are very similar. Water came all the way down the streets. The area near Concord, a whole neighborhood was wiped out by several feet of water. And other than a little maintenance, they're not on a list that has any hope of any kind of long-term solution, correct?

I know that the southeast part of Bayshore Beautiful had serious flooding in Haleen. That was mostly storm surge, as you know. Let me jump back to the original plan back in 2015 and 2016. Our chief engineer at the time prioritized those large dots and those small dots. And I keep referring to those. We had five large dots, about 100 small dots. One of the large dots was actually not a very large project. It was only $5 million. But the other four were large projects. So he prioritized those. and that's the order we did them.

When was the, can you, sorry, before they cut me off, I appreciate the detail, but when was the first time that a configuration down Howard came up on the plan. Is that idea 10 years ago? Because I have data going back to the 80s that shows that other recommendations were made.

You want to do that? Sure. Director. The South Howard project was fully vetted around, I would say, 2017. after 2017 uh and brad mentioned about uh bunches of smaller doubts and in fact we have targeted fakes at six projects previously that uh was in part of our quarterly report this is a cystic

But the route, okay, this is just identifying a problem area, but the idea of putting a culvert or some kind of massive structure down Howard, when was the first time that that was proposed?

I think around 2020.

2020. So again, if somebody says that the city has been ignoring this for 10 years, that's not true either because it's only at most been presented for six years. Would that be correct?

We spent about $1.5 million on the six targeted fakes in the area, but was not... I mean, the results, we didn't see much... we still see the flooding happening during the regular summer storm. So that's why we figured we need a larger scale regional project to be able to build a trunk land so that we can tie the local system into this trunk land and send the water to the bay. So that's where the South Howard project was developed.

thank you and let me ask a couple other questions the um so so knowing that there's the the the topography of this has been known at least since the 80s that's the oldest documents i have but somehow houses were built in there in the 80s there was a recommendation by engineers um you know we say we trust engineers but there were there were recommendations by engineers to be on the corner i think it was um horatio and habana which is one of the worst there was a recommendation by the engineers to build a retention pond there. And instead, now we have town homes there. Do you all know how that was allowed? Was there any way that the city, again, I was not on council back then, but was there any way that the city could have stopped or told people? The same thing happened on nights, by the way, in Bayshore Beautiful, where an exception was given to allow five houses to go in what was essentially a retention pond. They all got flooded in these same storms. How did the city allow houses and townhomes to be built in places that engineers had already identified were flood zones because of the bowls?

The EMI pond, in fact, was part of the retention system that was recommended as part of the Cleveland study. And since then, I think the original study you heard many times, including council members mentioned about in late 1980s, I think, were originally studied by PBSJ and then multiple studies have been conducted since then. And one of the multiple, one of the recommendation was retention detention system. And AMI pond is basically a part of that. The AMI pond was built around 1990.

So can I ask another question related to that is in Parkland Estates, I'm told that there are houses that had been built just the last few years that have very little permeable space and they were required to put culverts underneath. Would someone have a reasonable expectation that an area is gonna flood if they're required to build the culverts underneath the house?

That's part of the construction review.

And why wouldn't the city have required to have more permanent area? I also hear that some houses are considering now putting walls so that the flood will bounce off their walls and go into their neighbor's yard. So is that going to be allowed by the city? Wouldn't that exacerbate the flooding problems?

That's a very good question. That's part of the citywide watershed master plan. We are planning to revisit our technical menu.

I want to add, you mentioned AMI Pond. When Jean Dugga was still here, she showed an elevation. I tried to find it just now and I couldn't. The corner, I think it's Havana and Horatio, the elevation is lower than the AMI pond. So how's the water get into the AMI pond from the bottom? And I noticed on your map, you all say there's no structural flooding, but when Jean testified before, she said there will be minor flooding within the houses. So if the flooding goes four inches instead of 18, people still have to replace their drywall and their floors and their furniture that gets hit. Isn't that still a concern of how we deal with the bottom of the bowl in Palma Silla Pines because the AMI pond is high elevation?

We do have an existing drainage system connecting to the AMI pond.

Say that again?

The existing drainage system. But how does it go uphill?

You talked about how the water goes downhill. How does it go uphill into the pond?

It's by sheet flow, pretty much. It's what, sorry? By gravity, sheet flow.

But how does it go up? I don't understand that. If the elevation of the corner of ratio in Havana is lower than the AMI pond, how does the water get up into the AMI pond?

That's why the ponding is starting in that lower, the lowest point.

And someone this morning mentioned the Jewish Retirement Center. You know, I was the first person from the city in Palm Sea of Pines after the storm. I called Vic B. Day and the chief of staff from my car. I toured the houses, and we asked the city folks to get on it, and they did. But as the neighbors were driving me around, one of the things we saw is that it appeared that that pump station in front of the Jewish Retirement Center was not working, and it looked like it took maybe several weeks for it to be repaired. do you have data that says that it actually was working because it seemed not to be working we do have records showing uh during the hurricane 2024 the ami palm station was working we do have record um and also just for the record there was debris everywhere from helene the the ditches had not been dredged out which of course wouldn't have captured all the water but it would have captured some and then there was debris from helene Also, you talked about the, you all talked about the alternatives. I've had engineers look at the alternatives analysis. You all say you've looked at 24, but it seems to be a very superficial, experts say it's a superficial alternatives analysis. Usually when you're doing scientific method, you start by identifying the problem, then you do a big alternatives analysis. and you narrow it down. In this case, it appears that the alternatives analysis was half-hearted and only done after the fact because somebody just wants this to go down Howard. I don't understand why. But why was a thorough alternatives analysis not done early in this process?

A original study was done by GMT in 2022. I think they evaluated about 20 alternatives. They treated every single alternative the same. I do have a match.

So I've read through that, and many other folks have read through it, and it just seems to be not very, you know, if somebody's given a brief, then they end up with what they're asked to do. While you're at it, One of the big questions, we're now in the alternatives analysis that we were presented more recently, Big B Day testified that the main reason that this alternative was chosen was because we could use the existing drainage underneath CSX and at Bayshore. Now we find that we can't use either one. So why wouldn't we go back and redo the alternatives analysis to do a more thorough alternatives analysis and look into the fact that the main reason that this route was chosen is no longer valid?

Besides, we do have an existing box cover that we can save the time and the money, but also there are several other reasons, because this alternative has no utility conflict. Many other alternatives, there are many possibilities that we have the utility conflict, including this one, some people proposed to let this water just go along the swan to the bay. We do not have utility conflict. And also, we have the wide enough right of way by the city. So we don't have to acquire additional easement or properties. And also, I think another way, another thing that Brad, maybe you can.

Yeah. I'm not asking for the alternatives analysis now, but considering that the primary reason that this one was chosen was because those two are available, it seems to be invalid now and that we should go back and re-look at the alternatives analysis. But while we're talking about Bay Short, can I ask you real quick?

If I could, Councilman, answer that question. Brad Baird, Administrator. The 5x10 box that's in there now is in good shape. It can be used. It is the alternative that's in the GMP. is in good shape. It will be used if CSX does not allow us to put an open cut 10 by 10. It will be used. It's in good shape.

And then you're going to run into that bottleneck like you talked about earlier, right? But let me ask you about the outfall at Bayshore. So you all, on Coachman, you know the Coachman area, which is another bowl. there was a pump and the lean pump was pumping water out and the pump did not fail, the backup generator did not fail, but the pump did not have enough force to push the water out when the storm surge hit it. So how is it that a pump cannot push the water out during storm surge, but somehow gravity is going to allow this to go down? Did you all really look at the pressure of an eight foot storm surge compared to the gravity of this going down? It doesn't seem like it would only affect at seven or 10%.

As I said earlier, um, the, uh, we did model that condition where the bay was at eight feet during her hurricane lane. It only reduced the flow from 650 cubic feet per second to 600. If it flowed, it would have flown during or flowed during Helene. Very well.

Why didn't the pump work?

And the pump from Aileen Pump Station, as far as I know, and I can get back with you on that, it pumped just fine to the bay.

But why was there flooding then? It should have alleviated the flooding if it was still working. It was running, and the back of January was running, but it couldn't push out because of the pressure.

Because it's a 100-year storm and it was 8 feet high.

Another thing, several folks have mentioned the Cleveland outfall. Don't we have to replace the Cleveland outfall anyway and repair it? How are we going to leave the Cleveland outfall with breaks in it that potentially flood neighborhoods?

I mean, I don't know of any breaks in the Cleveland outfall. The reason that Cleveland was not used for this project or is not planned to be used for this project, it's a three-mile length from the AMI pond to Cleveland, and it's currently undersized.

But don't we have to replace it anyway and build a... A LARGER CAPACITY FOR CLEVELAND. THE QUESTION IS NOT JUST ABOUT THIS PROJECT BUT DON'T WE HAVE TO REPLACE THAT ANYWAY? ANY IDEA WHAT THAT COST IS GOING TO BE?

THERE MAY BE SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE WHEN THE CLEVELAND SYSTEM HAS TO BE REPLACED IN PART OR IN WHOLE. BUT THERE'S NO PLAN FOR THAT. I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT WHILE WE HAVE NOT MODELED IT, BECAUSE THIS current system, the AMI pump as it stands right now, pumps into Cleveland, redirecting that down Howard will help to relieve some of that burden that is currently on the Cleveland system.

Two quick questions.

This is not on yours, and I apologize, Councilman Coulson. I have a 3.30 city call on something, so just in three minutes I'll be coming up, probably ten minutes. I apologize.

Two other quick questions. And contrary to the conspiracy theories being circulated, I have no affiliation. I've never had any affiliation with the South Howard folks. In fact, if anybody Googles it, they'll see that I actually have had the contrary with them in the past. But they have threatened multiple lawsuits that will delay this for years. If the engineering is perfect and the budget's approved, it appears that litigation will hold this up for years. Why wouldn't the city try to avoid the litigation and find some solution? Because the ultimate thing, as my colleagues have said, is the neighborhoods deserve to be protected as soon as possible. Why would we choose a... It's going to be three or four years at best before they see any protection. I've talked to, again, engineers that aren't being paid by the city say there are short term things that we could have done and should do to protect the neighborhoods. I don't know why we haven't done those, but knowing that that the there's going to be litigation that could slow this down for years. Why wouldn't we pick a faster path to try to help the neighborhoods? This is the best.

I'm sorry, some of this goes into the next part of the presentation. Can I just get an answer to that?

Yeah, then let's move on. Okay, go ahead. I would say people threaten to sue us on just about everything we do.

Can I ask one more?

One more follow-up, go ahead.

I just think in project management, you have to look at all different risks. And the threat of litigation is a very real risk that you have to look at. I've worked on hundreds of multi-billion dollar projects, and I never would have gone forward on a project like this that has so many questions.

That's more of a statement than a question.

The last thing is, again, considering your map of all the areas in South Tampa and the rest of the city that flooded, at least 2,000 families were displaced because of flooding, but we only have one solution. The biggest question that most people are watching wanna know is how are we gonna resolve flooding in their neighborhoods and how does this work in with what's happening with them? Why is one neighborhood being prioritized? We do need to prevent flooding there. Why is one neighborhood being prioritized over all the rest?

Okay, we'll answer that question and then I'm gonna move on.

I would say that I think we need to be careful about conflating design for hurricanes versus design for our design storm conditions that this project is based on. Just to help sort of manage expectations for people to understand what this project does, we did model what the impact would be of this project on a Hurricane Milton-like event. Of course, that is the most prominent, and it's something that people have talked about in public comment. It is in recent memory. And we wanted to understand what would the impact of our project be in that sort of a scenario. But we did not design it for a Hurricane Milton. we cannot design our stormwater systems for hurricanes. So we've gotta be careful in how we represent what we're designing for, but also assure people what the impact of that design would be.

I just don't buy into that idea that we don't know what the new 100-year storm is going to be.

That's it. Thank you. I appreciate that clarity, by the way. Councilman, we're only halfway through the presentation.

No, real quick to respond to something he said. Okay, go ahead. So September 1st, 2016, we passed the capital improvement assessment. It was a Thursday evening. And with that, I don't know if it was in the backup material. But there's a master list. It's $251 million of the stormwater projects. And it'll say lower peninsula. And it's broken up in categories. It's color coded. What I remember on that list was Morrison was one of the projects. I don't remember. I mean, I'm going off memory. I may have the list somewhere. It's been 10 years. But I know that the city had broken down everything that they wanted to do citywide in that quarter of a billion dollar project. amount of money. I don't know if you have it. I had it for a long time. I have to find it.

Brad Baird, administrator. I do have that list and we can dig it out from ten years ago. My point was the mischaracterization in the community. It was quite the extensive list. I guess only two of you are here.

uh... for that boat but uh... uh... or may maybe councilman rebier was here at what you want i'd appreciate if you could uh... email that to all of us all seven council members okay the package from there list so we can all see the same information at the same time okay uh... uh... mister bear can you continue with the presentation and we'll hold questions till you complete it i will go through a normal round of questioning two rounds of questioning after this into the presentation of people should have further questions

Mr. Let me get to, if I can remember where we were, the South. Keep going. Keep going. They're right there. Okay. Okay. Um, thank you very much. Back room. All right. Business assistance plan. I mentioned up front, this is one of the two things that changed from January until now. Um, the, the biggest thing we probably did to mitigate, uh, impact to the businesses is shorten up the construction zone. This is comprised of 24 phases. I do not recall in my career where we have shortened up the phases this much. This is certainly a first, at least for me. The work will be limited to sections of about 400 to 600 feet at a time, so that is huge. And we will restore each of those sections close behind. As Councilwoman Hurtak will tell you, that was our very top issue on southeast Seminole Heights. We had spread out restoration, and it was a big issue. So we corrected that. We have a dedicated business support team. Kimmons will have a four person team focused specifically on helping businesses stay open and accessible. They will work directly with merchants to solve construction related issues including coordinating deliveries. Now this is important. Now most of the deliveries come via the side streets. We do have restaurants that do currently take deliveries on Howard and we will work with them to either move it to the side street or double handle those deliveries. where we have the equipment that can traverse the construction site, load that equipment up, bring it to the front door, and unload it again. And again, that will happen throughout the project. Signs will be constructed to help drivers and customers navigate construction and find the businesses along the route. Vibration monitoring, we have done this on many, many projects that I've been involved in, where you monitor vibration. And this is primarily vibration associated with the restoration, where you have vibratory compactors. We will, if necessary, use static compactors as much as we can. And also, you saw earlier, you know, there were renderings of sheet piling or Z piling is caused. We will not be using that technology. It's just simply too close to those buildings to vibrate in Z piling and could result in vibration. Instead, we're using a large box as Mr. Zamina outlined. We will document the buildings, of course, before work begins. We have done this many, many times as well. And if there are existing structural conditions or cracks, you put a crack monitor and then you check it on a regular basis to make sure that crack has not widened or moved or lengthened. We will maintain pedestrian access, and basically we will do whatever is necessary to get the pedestrians there with clear signage. We will reduce construction noise. Heavy equipment will use newer OSHA backup alarms. I personally don't like them because of my hearing, but they... Will reduce noise in the area but what you while maintaining? safe construction zone and then finally the Soho so hoping the city's so open campaign will remind people that Businesses are open during construction Encourage the community to keep shopping dining and supporting them. We will have help them with marketing and And anything they need be a social media billboards advertising and marketing And any ideas that any of you have on that? I know Councilman Carlson, that's your business. So we'll be we would love to hear your ideas on that. Um Next slide I In addition, you've heard about the streetscape improvements that will result in an improved South Howard corridor with wider sidewalks, much like you see in other developments in the Tampa Bay area. So that's just ancillary benefit of this project. Addressing concerns, you've heard a lot about maintenance. Maintenance alone will not solve this problem. And in fact, all the modeling that's done is assume the culverts are 100% clean, ponds are 100% dredged out, and it still shows flooding in those modeling efforts. Significant flooding. So the city and the design build engineers have evaluated 24 alternatives, including five recently from, I mean, five that the business alliance has provided. And then, of course, we've received two in the last two weeks as well. We've looked at those in detail, and I will address the last one that was sent in in one of my future slides. The added alternatives, bottom line, are more expensive, less feasible, even more disruptive in some cases, and in all cases, less effective, and in many cases, much, much less effective. The proposed plan easily protects the families, homes, businesses better than any other alternative. So from there, I'd like to first hit on the three main alternatives that have imploded. And then I will go to the Business Alliance recent alternative. So first, I want to talk about the SWAN route. that was brought up early on. This route is 30% longer and let me back up a little bit. We've included a QR code so you can take a picture of that code and go to the detail of this analysis. But what I've done is we've pulled up excerpts from those bullets. I realize you won't be able to read it, or especially the audience won't be able to read it.

I was going to ask you if Dennis printed this for you. I'm sorry. I was going to ask you if Dennis printed this for you. No, no.

That was very funny. No, no, the alternatives are so detailed that Brandon came up with the idea of let's highlight the important ones so everybody can read it. So it's 30% longer, obviously. If it's longer, it's going to be a cost increase. Construction timeline could be extended by one to two years. And then finally, and this one's big, the northbound Bayshore and Davis Island route, or Davis Island on-ramp, will be closed for two to three months. And that is to build the new outfall at that location. Keep in mind there is no outfall at that location. And then the next alternative that's been talked about quite a bit is the pond alternative. And that would require 232 properties and a total of well over 150 million in value for adequate space. Adequate space is equal to 70 acre feet of pond required. This does not account for design or construction costs, nor legal fees incurred by eminent domain proceedings. So in summary, this option is simply not feasible, and it would displace hundreds of residents in these two neighborhoods. And then finally, the pumping alternative has been kicked around, and there's several alternatives that have pumping involved. Um, if we were going to remove the amount of water associated with our design storm, again, that's 5.3 inches over eight hours, a box culvert is still needed to bring a runoff from palmacy of pines down to parkland estates. Um, a 10 foot diameter force main would still be needed. with similar construction impacts. You could install that with a microtunnel. The microtunnel would have to be 144 inches or 12 feet in diameter. There are only two or three firms in the world that perform large microtunnels, including the one we did with Harbor Island. Interestingly enough, we took the information from the Harbor Island microtunnel, which was much, much smaller. And I just lost my presentation. And we upsized that and put it to current dollars. And it amounts to about $125 million to $175 million for this option. So way more than the 10 by 10 box culvert. And finally, and most importantly, you would never be able to tie in any future neighborhoods to the forest main, which you can with any gravity system that's proposed. And now on to the new SoHo Business Alliance alternative. Many red flags jump off the page on this alternative. And again, we've only had a week to look at this. but first and foremost does not achieve the project's flood relief goals. It's 35% longer, which means more construction, higher cost, longer, runs through neighborhoods with very, very likely results in tree removals, relies on three vaults and pump stations, and guess what? Those vaults would need to be 12 foot deep The construction of the AMI vault is very problematic in that, one, we don't own it. Two, it would require removal or demolition of that parking deck. So the hospital patrons and doctors and nurses would not be able to use that parking lot for some time. So you'd have to get their permission since they own it. And then if you look at the green line that goes just south of the AMI vault And it goes to do south I believe That property is not owned by the city So it crosses property lines that said he doesn't own and finally We have CSX conflicts if you'll see that a diagonal line toward the south that goes along the CSX right away. That is about 800 feet of pipeline that this engineer is proposing to upsize. In my career, CSX has not approved a parallel pipeline next to their tracks. It would very, very likely not be permittable. And then as well as that, there's issues with the CSX crossing that I won't get into. But to read more and get more detail on that, please go to shstormwater.com and read up on that. And then I think last slide before my, oh no, second to last slide. Myth, lack of maintenance is a real cause of flooding. It is not, it's validated modeling and conditions show capacity is the issue. In fact, all of our modeling, as I said earlier, assumes that those culverts are clean and all the ponds are cleaned out. Well, with every single storm, you do have some debris, small amounts of debris, that remain behind in those culprits. Phase one does not address palmacea pines. That statement could not be further from the truth. Phase one removes all structural flooding for the targeted storm in palmacea pines. The proposed project takes too long to provide any relief. As I think one gentleman said this proposed project is the quickest way to provide flood relief It is the shortest distance between these two neighborhoods and the bay And finally the city will use that eminent domain I think one of the charts showed that properties that we would encroach on No, eminent domain is needed. The box can be built within the existing right-of-way real quickly because I know I know we've been here a while. The construction schedule, and I hope the audience can see that. I know you can on your screen. If this is approved on September 17th, October 2026, we would issue a notice to proceed. We would start utility relocation. on November of 2026. And Bayshore Boulevard triple box extension would start March of 27 after Gasparilla. And May of 27, the box cover would start on South Howard itself. The CSX crossing, again, is a more than a year out and it would happen in May of 2028 as currently shown in the GMP. West Morrison Avenue intersection would be reached by February 2029, West Swan Avenue intersection in October 2029, Parkland Estates May of 2030, substantial completion September of 2030. And this picture that you've seen many, many times can be a thing of the past. I won't go through every bullet, but I think the point was made several times this morning. Yes, it protects families, it protects businesses, but more than just structures, more it provides access for the hospital, for doctor's offices, for assisted living, for emergency vehicles. So it is a health and safety issue for this area. And with that, I will either open it up for questions, and I don't see Dennis here, or invite Dennis up to provide his five slides of financial funding. But, oh, here he is, here he is. So it's your pleasure, if you want to ask Grant.

Yeah, let's finish the presentation, then we can combine, because we're going to go through two rounds of questioning. Did you hear my question, Dennis, earlier?

It did not escape me.

Okay. I think you can just hit the end. Just want to make sure you're there.

Again, good afternoon, Council. Dennis Rejero, Chief Financial Officer. Just a couple of opening remarks, again, if we could set the table. If Council does decide to approve this project, I just want to reiterate there are ample sources of available funding. The plan you have today and the financial resolution that you have today uses only some of them. What doesn't it use? It doesn't use any community investment tax renewal funding. You won't be doing it until the 17th, by the way. I'm sorry? We're not taking any resolutions today. It'll be the 17th. Understood. But it's part of your package. Understood. No CIT renewal. Again, at various times we have discussed using some of that funding, and there's ample funding. Again, nearly about $200 million just for transportation over the next 15 years, but we've decided that the roadways and paving are a higher priority than using CIT for this project. I will note that, again, the funding plan that you have before you and the one we provided you August 10th doesn't include nor rely on any additional FDEP funding. We're still very confident that was and remains a very viable funding source, but you'll recall there was some discomfort with the uncertainty associated with that grant. and there's still uncertainty. Again, I began this, I think, in January, giving you no assurances on that funding, and I still don't give you any assurances, but we're very confident we're going to get a significant amount of funding from that grant. But we don't need it for this funding plan you have right in front of you. As you've heard Stormwater, Mr. Baird, and myself say, and I think Brandon and Yuan We have many opportunities over the next coming years to continue to ask for increases to the existing grant, and that's what we intend to do. If I could have the wolf up, please.

I got a PowerPoint for you. Is that what you want?

I'm sorry?

It looked like they had a PowerPoint loaded for you. Oh, is that the old one? OK. Sorry.

And again, this was distributed to council on the 10th of August. Nothing's changed. Just a refresh here. Design, of course, a little over $7.7 million. Construction, a little over $92.7 million. What has already been approved by outside organizations where applicable and by city council, you see we're about halfway there, $50.1 million.

Can you stop there for a second? I'm sorry, yes, sir. I think that's a little misleading. I don't want to go past that. What's been approved as far as funding, not for this project? So this money is available, but just not, we haven't approved it for this project.

That is the next slide. This funding has been approved by council for this project.

For this project? Yes, sir. Okay, great. So we've already transferred that money for this project? Yes. Interesting, okay, great.

And again, about 50-50. This is still requiring approval by, again, an outside agency, that would of course be Thea, and city council for the project realignments and use of the 2006 CIT debt. And again, one of the ways we are not relying on that FDEP additional funding is to add a request for stormwater improvement assessment funding of $25.9 million. Full disclosure, and we've discussed it, there will be, if we have to issue or if we have to use that 25 million in stormwater improvement assessment, there will be some interest costs associated with that. The reason it's in this format, of course, is to come up with the total. and show council and the public that you have uses. Of course, the $100.4 million we're discussing today and these sources, which I've just identified for you. One of the things I'd like to add, and this was belated, but we thought it would be helpful, You heard me just a little while ago talk about the funding that we anticipate over the next 20 years. Again, this is a 30-year assessment. We have 20 more years. You've heard Mr. Baird say it. You've heard me say it. We have ample capacity in this revenue source for the additional funding for the South Howard flood relief project. Again, we've collected about $130 million in the last decade. We anticipate another $360 million over the next 20 years. Again, this is a 30-year assessment. That'll bring the total at the end of this 30 years almost half a billion, $490 million. As council knows, we have bonded quite a bit of this funding. We still have $205 million of outstanding debt service over the next 20 years. Once we take care of that we have a potential funding picture you see in front of you right now. That accomplishes a couple of things. It keeps the recommended five-year CIP static, no change to what we've submitted to council. It provides that $25.9 million for South Howard, and again, full disclosure, if we have to take that debt out, and again, we might not, depending on the other funding, it's about $9.3 million of interest over that 20-year period. Leaving, and you see at the top left there from fiscal year 32 to fiscal year 46, a little over $90 million. What's that translate to over 15 years? About $6-ish million every year for PAYGO CIP, which is approximately maybe a little more than what it's averaged in the past. And I can answer any questions.

So Dennis, again, maybe it's me, but the, so if you go back, so when you're looking at this slide, This is 32 to 46. Yes, sir. You've got to go back. The other money that you have available, we're paying interest on that as well. Can you throw the other slide that you had up there with the existing money that has been allocated but not obligated? Oh, yeah, absolutely. And I think that's the key to allocated, not obligated. It's available for use in this project, but not obligated for use in this project. That one? Let's see. Yeah. Yeah, this is it, yes. We're paying interest on everything but the grant. Yes, sir, we have already borrowed this funding. Yes, so we're paying interest on that, too. I just want to make sure we're clear. What is that, 29, 30, 31? No. You have $31 million on that. That's about right. So there's $31 million in bonds that we're paying interest on. And then in addition to the other pie graph you showed, which shows another $25 million. Yes. So that's $56, $57 million of borrowed money that we're paying interest on.

And further to that, I mean, you haven't asked for it, but we can provide the interest associated with those items too. Because 21 was lower interest rates.

I guess 23 would have been lower interest rates from day two, yes. So that's a good point. Thank you. Councilwoman her tech so this we're gonna do are you finished with your presentation?

I just won just one final comment and of course this pie chart was provided So the lower peninsula reallocation How much

In FDEP grants, did we win for that Lower Peninsula project?

I don't think it was FDEP, but anyway.

$25 million from FDEP. OK.

So it was a $25 million. So because we got the $25 million, we basically got that $21 and a half.

But it's still borrowed money.

Well, yes. But we had to borrow it because we hadn't gotten the grant yet. It's still cheaper than if we borrowed it today.

Councilman Cross, did you have another question or do you want to wait until he finishes with the presentation? He can finish in an hour. Okay. And then we'll go to round one for five minutes of questions. Okay.

Again, we thought this would be a helpful visual aid to counter the continuing misinformation that this additional improvement assessment funding depletes the improvement assessment funding for the next 20 years. Obviously it does not. It's helpful.

I'm sorry? It's helpful.

Was that it? Yes, sir. You're done. Okay. Council. So this will be round one, five minutes council across.

Yeah. Quickly a statement to the, um, the so-called, um, uh, alternatives analysis. It's what I call afterthought justification. When you decide what you want to do, then you do an analysis to prove your point. I could go through each one of those and easily pick out what's wrong with the model of the analysis, but I won't waste time right now. But we should have done an honest alternatives analysis in the beginning of the project. But Dennis, could I ask you, please, Mr. Harrow, the pie chart, could you put it back up, please?

Yes, sir.

So we're almost to 2027. So between 2027 and 2032, This is the question that all the other neighborhoods in Tampa that flood after every rain wanna know. For 2027 through 2032, how much money is there left in this fund that we can spend in their neighborhoods?

From 2027 to 2032, There will, well, it's the $30 million in the fiscal year 27 to 31 CIP pay go. It's what's in the recommended budget right now.

So that, but those are already allocated to certain projects. So the projects that have not been allocated, how much more money is there that we can, so the people that, the people whose area's flooded, if they're not in the CIP, their houses flooded, there were rivers of water through their houses in maybe 20 different areas just in South Tampa, not to mention New Tampa, East Tampa, West Tampa. Their families were upended, they had to leave their houses, they had to go back and rebuild, and now there's no protection for them. The city has not even done maintenance in their areas. What hope do they have for a solution? When will there be money in this fund that we can use to find solutions if they're not in the CIP?

Understood. In the next five years, notwithstanding the five-year CIP and notwithstanding any projects that have already been bonded, there'd be very little funding, maybe some fund balance.

So what the opposition said, maybe not as precisely true, but that $26 million could have been spent through 20 different neighborhoods to try to relieve flooding. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't do that, but... But if the purpose of this slide is to prove that this doesn't take away from other neighborhoods, the reality is that it does in the short term. Because people flooded in Helene and Milton, and they're just getting back in their houses now and houses throughout the city. And there's no hope for those folks. The folks in these two neighborhoods are hoping that this will go through, even though it's proven that this won't prevent all the flooding even after it's done. But the folks in the other neighborhoods that were flooded whose houses were completely swamped with water, they have no hope whatsoever.

Again, that would be a prioritization issue for the department.

Yes, sir. Okay, anybody else for round one? Councilwoman Young.

okay so um i'm looking at so each of these uh the for the projected cost and it has where you know the amounts of money um for each these are each like different buckets of money right that will be used for the 92 million yes ma'am so my question is for so if you have a stormwater improvement assessment fund uh 31 291 So for each of these, um, buckets, would you be able to tell me how much would be left in it after this amount is taken out after the amounts are taken out?

I believe that are you referencing the resolution? Yes, ma'am. Uh, if I'm not mistaken, none, we are depleting them.

You said we're depleting depleting them.

Yes.

Okay. Okay. So with that being said, I think maybe the last meeting we had and you had put up, there was a slide that was put up of projects that had been either completed or canceled for the South Highway project. I'm sure we heard in public comment today about one of those projects being the 56th in Broadway, which I did myself, my legislative aide, Brandon Campbell, Ms. Lee, and also the person who made public comment today, Fran Tate. We all met. That was on August 25th. So what came out of that meeting is there's a possibility that we could probably still have a conversation with the landowner to get the easement to do that stormwater project. So in the event, let's say we talk with that business owner and they say, yes, we will grant you all this easement, we could go forward with the project. Would there be money to do that project?

There would not. There's a little over $1 million balance, and we are requesting reallocation of that to this project.

If I could add to that. So again, Brandon Campbell, Mobility Director. That $1 million plus a little bit that's in that project account is being moved within the resolution that you all have in front of you. As we spoke, there was no path forward with that particular project. If there was a new path forward, we could reengage and we'd be happy to talk to a new property owner or however that new path happened to open up. And the money that is in the pie chart that Mr. O'Hara showed, that $30 million allocation to the next five years of CIP, I believe we'd be able to find some opportunity within that allocation to refund that project. There we go. Thank you.

If we could have the wolf up, please.

yes so it may be a it may be that we need to reallocate or move some money around within the cip as shown here if it's not here then of course that 90 million that mr o'hara showed in the whatever color that was the the big slice would be a potential target for us to fund a new path forward on that particular project okay so here's my

I guess, dilemma. Because in one sentence you say we'll be depleting everything. And then you say, but we will have it. So which one is it? Will we be depleting the funds or will there be funds available?

We are, and again, maybe one of us is misunderstanding your question, all funding available, and I'll use that 56th and Broadway project as an example, all funding available in that project right now we are depleting for the South Howard Relief Fund. as the director just said. However, if there was an opportunity to re-engage on that project, that's one of the reasons I wanted to put that CIP up. You see there's about $30 million over the next five years in the PAYGO CIP, and then you've seen the capacity still that remains over the next 20 years, and I believe those were the funding sources he was discussing.

Yes, that's correct. I would also add that design effort could be pursued in-house as well without having to tap into the CIP. So whatever design that we've got, I know we did at least some concept development. If we need to advance that with the in-house team, we do have some capabilities that we could use without having to require some additional budget to be allocated specifically to that.

So if this South Howard project was approved, if it came back and it was approved, If it comes back on the 17th and it's approved, we go and talk with the business owner and they say yes, we would still be able to move forward with their project. We wouldn't wait until 2030 or whatever.

We would not necessarily have to wait until 2032. Being a smaller project, I think there are opportunities that we would have. with our existing capital and operating funds to, excuse me, let me restate that, with our existing capital funds to pursue that project.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody? Count Maniscalco, no. Miranda, no. Herchak, no.

Councilman Carlson, do you have any questions?

I just have a couple observations and some things on IOUs I'd like to have from you guys. Yes, sir. One, obviously, I think the CSX culvert issue, I need to have additional information on understanding that better and having better assurances. Because I agree with Councilman Carlson. I distinctly remember Mr. Bidet when he was in talking about this route because of the advantages of the CSX crossing and the culvert being there, one of the reasons why this was a preferred route. So I think that being said, I think I would also like to see, have you guys done any modeling with this proposed bottleneck reference to flow rates? So understanding that if we're using the existing, if we're stuck with the five by 10, what that flow rate looks like and how that impacts versus if we were just doing five by 10s all the way up Howard. And also, you don't have to answer me now. I'm just saying.

I can.

So the model. Let me finish things. You may be able to pile it all together. So modeling what they're just, five by 10 and whether we would just be using five by 10s all the way up Howard. And also modeling if you're able to get access to doing the tunneling for the 60 inch tunneling. or if we're able to do the complete project, which I guess your modeling already shows if you're able to go underneath the CSX with the full 10x10 culvert. I'm assuming that's what the modeling currently shows?

The modeling currently shows the two pipes side-by-side, the 5x10 plus the additional microtunnel pipe.

So that's where I've missed it. Because I thought when you had the two side-by-sides it was two 5x10s.

No. So the alternate that has been proposed would only be an efficiency add, would only be a timeline reduction, would only be a cost reduction. So we're confident we can accomplish the project as proposed.

So if CSX gives you permission to rip up the tracks and put it in, it will cost less than the microtunneling? Correct. Fascinating. Okay, interesting. So a couple of other things, change orders. Some assurances, because again, you know, running the math, I spent all weekend running the math, we're getting really close on that ratio. So, and I think one of the things we have to protect ourselves are for potential change orders. How do we protect ourselves? I need a good briefing on how we're protecting ourselves from potential change orders, which would end up making this project cost prohibitive, you know, that we end up, the benefit would, the cost would out-seed the benefit. So I'd like to kind of talk to you, have a conversation with you guys, how we're protecting ourselves from that, and maybe Kevin's as well, I don't know. And I do would like to say I have 100% confidence in Kevin's. I know they've been great partners with the city, and they've been able to do some really good projects in the city. So any kind of conversation I have, it should reflect badly, because I think Kevin's has been an amazing partner for the city. So I'm very happy that we have them working on this project, and it provides a little bit of comfort for myself. On the positive side, I just want to make sure what I've observed in this project, and I had this conversation with staff as well to reconfirm because it's an observation I independently came to, but then confirmed it with them, that the benefit of this Phase one doesn't have the biggest benefit. And while we're still in a positive variance where we're still able to reap a reward for phase one if we don't have any real true cost escalation, the cost benefit is still positive. Where we're really gonna reap the war is if sometime we can get phase two, because the ratio really grows tremendously on phase two, the benefit that we derive from that. That being said, we can't get to phase two unless we have phase one. and so you're not able to get to phase two which is where we get the most benefit unless we have phase one and i think and it's definitely in the science about tying this project in on phase one and having the future for the again after i'm gone dead daisies are growing on my grave some other council will be able to sit here and expand this this project if you have to have that um But I still gotta resolve those other issues before I can get to this definitive yes on this. That being said, the last thing I'm gonna leave us with as far as my observation is our policies on construction and stormwater need to be re-looked at. This is a really good example. Councilman Maniscalco, Councilman Miranda both hit on this hard. The growth in building city of Tampa, accommodating a half inch of rain is not where we are in moving into 2027. Climate change is real. we're having to shed much more water than we've ever thought we'd ever going to have to shed again. So as we approve new projects, we're going to have to look at our stormwater mitigation more closely and identify ways to be able to, if they cannot accommodate the water, they need to pay for future infrastructure to accommodate moving that water off of their properties. Okay. Councilwoman Hurtick.

Well, you'll have to see if the state will let you do that.

Yeah, exactly. The state won't let us do anything.

Yeah, well, that's part of the issue. And, you know, we've debated that a lot in the evening sessions is how do we talk about stormwater? And I have actually brought that up with staff, and it's not gone where I wanted it to go. But so I, you know, to talk about those... the questions of overruns can can you can one of you remind me about nelson and the southeast seminole heights stormwater project if i remember correctly they lost a ton of money on that project we didn't what were the overages like i don't think we paid overages brad baird administrator infrastructure and mobility i do not have those numbers with me i do not

I believe we came in under budget, but I can get back with you on that. Okay.

Yeah, because if I remember correctly, we approved that budget right before costs skyrocketed.

We did.

And so we won out big time.

comparatively and we did yeah we weren't they didn't do any change orders because we didn't because that was a guaranteed maximum price isn't that correct yes that is correct so as I recall and I'll have to verify this for you but we came in under budget but over time

if you remember okay thank you so just to just to clarify before i get to councilman carlson on i just want to have some assurances with staff and we can have this offline how we're protected in this contract from change order you know that would greatly increase the cost of this if we have we've anticipated as much as we could possibly anticipate to anticipate to avoid that

Yeah, and I think I said this last time. Yeah, it's a great question. So we do have an owner's contingency and we have a contractor's contingency. And I believe the one's 5% and one's 3%, and I'm not sure. Yeah, one's 5 and one's 3. And that's exactly what that's for. And I will remind you that in each of the Kimmons large contracts that we've had, Lower Peninsula, Upper Peninsula, and then we've had, of course, other projects, if I'm not mistaken, all have come in under budget.

That's why Kimmons is a great partner.

Councilman Carlson.

Yeah, I just want to follow up on and say the same thing. Out of all the projects I've seen Kimmons do, there are only two that I've ever had any complaints about. And neither one of them have started yet. And one of them is the red lights on Franklin Street, which Harbor Island and a bunch of people are against. And then there's this one. The other ones, they were very complicated, complex process. And John's in the room. He's highly praised by the community, neighborhoods. And so the community has great confidence in them. Brandon, Yuan, they're out in the community. They answer tough questions. The staff is liked. So the question is why these two projects are so controversial? What you typically do, scientific method, is you go in, you analyze a problem, you build consensus in the community around the problem, then you analyze possible alternatives, you build consensus and understanding about the alternatives, and then you start leading to like a few shortlisted alternatives, and you build consensus around that, and then you build consensus around a final solution. And what happened in this case is that the city skipped a bunch of steps and decided that this was the right route. By the way, it's no coincidence that a whole bunch of people from the department quit at the time this project was launching. And I've had in-depth conversations with them. and i think part of it is that the mayor's office got involved they politicized everything when the mayor decides that she wants to do something and it's the right solution when she's convinced of it she's not an engineer either but when she's convinced she doesn't back down just like on those um on those two red lights it's it's insane that the city would use so much political power and energy and create such a divisive environment i mean she held meetings and on Harbor Island without including the neighborhoods association leaders. And on this, stirring up trouble in the neighborhoods. Now there's some people in the neighborhood who are causing trouble too, but the issue is that the mayor's office is stirring up a lot of problems and trouble. Of all the neighborhoods that flooded in South Tampa, nobody is complaining like this. There's no hand-wringing on everybody. These other neighborhoods have no chance of getting any kind of solution whatsoever. They're not in the budget, they're not in the plan, and they're sitting there patiently waiting. You don't hear them, you don't see them sending us the kind of nasty emails we've gotten on this project. So there's something happening where the mayor's office, maybe combined with a couple people in the neighborhood, have turned this into a divisive issue. It shouldn't have been this way. We have real people whose real lives were affected by this. There should have been consensus built in the last couple years. This should have been a no-brainer. Instead, there are a lot of questions, a lot of doubt, and a lack of trust throughout the whole community on this. And there needs to be a way to hit reset on it. Thank you.

Councilman Miranda. Thank you, Chairman. In fact, Brad, I'm sure that you're aware of it. All these companies that do business with the city of Tampa and this type of process have to have a bond. that they will guarantee the job at a certain time for a certain amount of money. And we've had defaults in the past where the insurance company picks up. The only problem we have is that we can't pick the contractor. They bring their own contractor in to finish the job. Am I correct?

Yes, you're correct. We have defaulted several contractors over the years, as you know. We've defaulted three just in the last five years. And I defaulted quite a few early on when everything was designed, been built. We do have two bonds. If I could, one is performance and one is payment. Make sure the subs get paid. And we are very strict on making sure that happens.

I'm sure that's not going to happen here, but I just had to bring it up so that the public feels that they are protected to the degree that their money won't be wasted. It is. Thank you very much.

Okay. Okay. If I don't have any other questions, I think we're – anybody else? I'm going to close out this segment, and we're going to move on to – as we've finished our business up to today. Remember, there are no votes today. This was information. We have now two weeks to talk to staff to gather further information, and then we'll come back on the 17th, and that will be the day that we will vote. ANYTHING? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. OKAY. THAT CONCLUDES OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM. THANK YOU, COUNCIL. YEAH.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

YES. I WOULD...

YES. CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY, JUST TO CONFIRM WITH THE CLERK... DO WE NEED A MOTION TO CONTINUE THOSE?

NO. I DIDN'T THINK SO.

so okay so we are we are going to hear items 36 37 38 and 39 on september at the regularly scheduled city council meeting on september 17th i've got one here what am i doing

No, I mean, they're the same.

Okay, so we have completed. We're done, right? Okay, good. So let's go to new business. Councilman Carlson. Councilman Vera. All right, thanks.

And Councilman Clendenin, I don't know how you felt about this. Gil Schisler, who's on the Hart Board, I think he's term limited as a Temple Territorial City Councilman. And, you know, he's been such a great champion for transit. I thought it would be great if off-site we could give him a council commendation. That's a great idea. Yeah, he's a good dude.

He's a really good guy. He's a great guy.

So that's my only motion. And all facilities, anybody who wants to come, may.

To be determined off-site. We have a motion from Councilman Bureau, second from Councilman Mascotco. All those in favor say aye. Thank you. That's it.

Thank you, Council.

Councilwoman Young.

I already mentioned it earlier, but just because it was submitted in writing to all of you all, I actually did have a meeting with Fran Tate, with Brandon Campbell, with Ms. Lee to talk about this. the 56th and Broadway project that was on August 25th. We met right here in the sister cities room. So just because if you're going to, you know, submit something on record and write it down, we're going to, you know, give the truth. Also, I attended a few things. I went, I was at the Buffalo soldiers monument unveiling, which was fantastic. fantastic if you haven't seen the monument it is very very very nice so and it was very well attended um also um you know it's not necessarily um city of tambor but you know our last cra meeting said we would have a house have a meeting regarding jackson house and that did happen and we're continuing conversations with that just to keep you up to date on that we all were at the urban well most of us were at the urban reworks groundbreaking which was very well attended and very well received by the community so i'm very excited to see their project to come online and then yesterday i also went to a grand opening of a d rose gastro bar in ybor city which was very nice very nice also attendance as well so oh and then the derrick brooks charities community police community policing and relationship meeting where we have youth that are on the call from all over the county in I think middle school and high school to talk about how you know students and how do we you know have better relationships with police and it was a great conversation so that's all

and mr chairman i forgot one small thing if i may go ahead uh just reminder to council members those of you all who haven't gotten your names to my office for the veterans board please do what whenever whenever y'all can and we i have yours and i want to see if i made councilwoman young on the comment that was made you're awesome and it's it's i don't hate the player i hate the game so it's okay that's all you're all right that's all in her tech

Yes, I have a request by the Planning Commission to remove TA CPA 26-03 and TA CPA 26-07 from the September 24th 2026 adoption here like a motion councilwoman her tech second council of your office a favor say aye And on a personal night, I just want to thank the public I want to thank you all y'all have been just like overwhelming with know thoughts and prayers and good news and good or just you know best of luck and uh all the flowers i think we're gonna have to fill kelly's car today um so i just i just want to say thank you to everyone um you know it it means a lot and i feel um very supported and uh you know it's a new normal but uh but i really do appreciate it i appreciate everyone wearing the ribbons today um so uh i just wanted to make a big blanket thank you even though i'll have to do some more um you know personal ones but uh it's just it's meant a lot and i really appreciate it you've been in our thoughts councilman i've been praying for you every day actually every morning that's when i pray and you're gonna be okay and i'm gonna keep on praying

Councilman Miranda. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to make a motion to have Chuck Gard and General Manager Tampa Bay Water present an annual presentation at the October 1st meeting, if possible.

How's that look?

Did you look at the schedule? Is it good? Pardon me? Are we good on the schedule? I'll be honest with you. It's my mistake. I'll accept the motion.

So we're full.

Can I make... That's only two. This won't take but a couple of minutes. Oh, that's right. Yeah, that's true, that's true. Yeah, we're going to present that as a convention.

Okay, so we need to, do you need a motion to remove that or are you just going to remove it? No. Okay, so then it's available. Okay, so I have a motion from Councilman Moran, a second from Councilman Maniscalco. Did I hear that? Yep. All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Opposed? Aye. I'm also going to turn in my electric bill that solar does work. It was $15.69. I'm going to start sending my electric bill to you. Second.

Can we just, I just want to ask T&I if they can look at our mics over the next week because the reverberation's gotten worse, not better.

You know, speaking of which, Councilman Rand has mentioned this to me a hundred times, and it's referenced, people are standing at the podium and they don't realize that mic is inside. Is it possible to put a physical mic there so people actually see the mic and speak into it? So they actually see the mic and they speak into it. That might be worth pursuing. Can I make one? Councilman Krause.

Since I can't talk to you about this outside, can you ask Chuck Harden to talk specifically, whatever he wants to talk about, but also specifically talk about the new sources of water and the demand that they've negotiated with the city, just so that as we get into droughts, if droughts are going to be more likely in the future, then... I'll have him call you about that. Okay, all right, thank you. Yeah, no problem.

Are you done? Yes, sir. Councilwoman Young.

I forgot, I also went to Big Fest, which was in Sulphur Springs at River Tower Park, which was put on by Camille Adrian from Indy Noir Market. It was a celebration of all of the small black businesses that are in Tampa, and it was a

three-day event and it was fantastic she always does a fantastic job so i had to put that out there i'd hate to have those big fest people come after you because you forgot them councilwoman yeah okay chair okay uh let's see a couple of a couple information that i have one motion um the as you are aware that we're in the budget season the city council budget is kind of odd I'm going to spend the next few days going through it. There's some misinformation out there about how these budgets work, how council office budgets work, how council general budget works. I'll have more information the next time we meet, which would be our budget hearing. I'll brief everybody, at least what I find. I've been talking to our finance folks and Mr. Shelby and our budget analyst about it. And I'm only probably about 10% into where we need to be to get, I just wanted to bring that to your awareness of what I'm looking into. And if you guys have any thoughts, if you'd email your thoughts to me, I won't reply.

Could you be more specific?

Well, there's, okay, so I think we've gone from small city to big city mentality and how we deal with the city side of the budgets. One, there's been a misunderstanding, a misconception that budgets roll over, they don't. Oh, they do? Now you've got more information? They do and they don't? They do and they don't. How's that? So I've got to clarify that. We've got to clarify that how the budgets are allocated between offices and the general council funding, how we're paying for stuff, or like if we have, like Councilman Carlson had the temporary help come in, or we've had that Councilman Beard, I think he has some temporary help too, and how we're paying for that, how the budgets work. So I think we have to really pin down some very specifics of how we handle our budget for council.

And the high, high cost of plaques.

That's nothing. We should have an office budget.

Sorry, I just had to, I couldn't let that go.

You know who used to get on me with that? Because I've been doing this thing for 10 years. Frank Reddick. Remember Guido? Yeah, he used to always get on me for that. So you're not the first.

So, I mean, that's just something that's out there. Again, I've kind of taken a bite of this. I don't know if we'll rectify it in 2027. Yes. You're part of the problem, so I don't even want to hear from you.

I just want to make you feel good.

I don't know.

I've been chairman a few times, and when I was chairman, the whole budget for city council for the month was $900. So the whole thing. You can go on vacation, you can go to.

I used to be able to buy a loaf of bread for five cents.

But you're old enough.

Well, you know, you're partially correct. You're partially correct. So that's kind of where I'm at on that. Just I wanted to give a share of information. The other thing is those of you who do not know, the Charter Review Commission has finished their work as a committee. They wrapped that up this week. Now our attorney for the Charter Review Commission is putting that language that they've adopted into legalese. We're still working on a process of how that will come to us. Also know that the city council will be able to move things forward as well. Mr. Shelby, am I missing something there?

We'll be able to reassess and then report back. It's going to, by the way, with regard to the council for the CRC, when the commission ends its work, which it has, there's a phase two which allows him now to do work for the city council.

and we have to look to make sure it may require a budget amendment to allow that to happen that may be coming to council shortly and that was going to be my next statement is that we've run out of legal money so we'll have to we'll have to supplement that which is the is it's the administration's responsibility to provide the funding for per the charter for the charter for legal staffs but we'll have to do that right have the we'll have to have the administration initiate that budget amendment to be able to accomplish

And all they need is the green light from me to the legal department.

Right, and they're anticipating that. They are, yes. Okay, that being said, this is a good segue. I would like to, one, I said it to Ashley Morrow, thank you for appointing her as a member. She became elected as the chair of the committee. And all the members of the Charter Review Commission that we appointed, including the administration, they did some really good work. I would like to make a motion to provide a commendation to the CRC from the City of Tampa City Councils on a date to be determined on site here when they make their presentation to Council.

okay i have a motion from chair i have a second from councilman miranda um all those in favor aye okay that's one for each one yes exactly yeah correct yes exactly yeah that's it that's a nice gesture yeah yes ma'am i have a correction for october 1st i went back and reviewed last week's meeting there looks like it was a mix-up with staff between two motions so there is actually three most accommodations for october 1st The third one is the accommodation that Council Member Young made for Les Miller.

Oh, okay.

Are you talking about the garden deal? How about, what is it, November 9th or something like that?

No, November 5th is open.

I had another date there in case that wasn't acceptable. November 5th.

Okay, November 5th. Okay, so a motion to amend that previous motion.

A motion to amend that to November 5th. Second.

Okay, we have motion from Councilman Miranda, second from Councilwoman Hurtek. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Any further business? Any new business? Mr. Shelby.

Martin Shelby, City Council Attorney. Some housekeeping matters with regard to the Natural Resources Advisory Committee. As you know, you've passed the resolution to make the appointments. But just in housekeeping, I'd like to ask council to remove file number 20, 2026-48 for a resolution relating to NRAC membership that's scheduled to come on November 17th. That's moot at this point, please.

So moved.

I have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtek. Second from Councilman Moran. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Mr. Shelby.

And to complete the cleanup on that, I'd like Council to rescind the August 6th motion that appointed alternates when there was no provision for that to be able to be done.

I have a motion from Councilman Vieira, second from Councilwoman Young. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, ayes have it. That was it.

Thank you, Council, and Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you want to remind the public of the budget meeting that's coming up at 5.01 p.m. on Tuesday.

I didn't, but you did. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega.

Well, on that note, that is actually because Monday's a holiday. That will be my second day of chemo, so the chances of me participating virtually are going to be pretty high. Okay. So just a little FYI.

Very good. Anything else? Got a motion to receive and file? Motion with Councilman Miranda. Second with Councilman Vieira. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. We are adjourned.

Thank you.