[music] [music] [music] [music] Miranda here, Meniso >> here, Kurt >> here, Vieiraa Carlson and Clen Daniel here. We have a physical forum. >> Thank you very much. Okay, we are back on the morning agenda even though it's afternoon. Uh we are going to do the let's see is there any requests for the public for reconsideration of legislative matters? Hearing none. Thank you so much. Consent agenda. Char, Councilman Miranda, would you move items one through Well, he's not here, so I guess it doesn't matter. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, can you move items two through seven please? >> Your advice. >> I'm sorry. I was your speech. I was >> You mean your majesty would be fine. >> Move them number two through seven. >> We have a motion to move items two through seven. Is there a second? We have a second. Councilman Maskcalo. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Eyes have it. Thank you very much. Uh, Councilwoman Herk. >> Okay. Items 8 through 19. >> Second. >> We have a motion from Councilwoman Herk, a second from Councilman Miranda. Those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Eyes have it unanimously. Thank you. Uh, Councilman Mancalo 20 through 26. >> Yes. >> I'd like to make a motion to move items 20 through 26. >> Second. We have a motion from Council Menalo. Second from council Miranda. All those in favor say I. >> I. Oppose. Eyes having unanimously. Thank you. Councilman Miranda. >> Move 27 to 29. >> Thank you. We have a motion to move items 27 through 29 from Miranda. Second from Councilman Maska. All those in favor say I. >> I. Oppose. Eyes have it. Thank you. >> And I will move items 30 through uh 31 and 32. Thank you. >> And 33 through 45. >> Actually 30 through 31, not 32. >> I'm sorry. 30 through 31 and 33 through 45. >> Thank you. We have a motion from Councilwoman Herk, a second from Councilman Vieier. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Eyes have it unanimously. Thank you so much. >> And just a reminder, we did pull item 32. It will be heard with item 61 for those of you that are following at home. >> Okay. >> And then I move items [clears throat] 46 through 49. >> Second. >> We have a motion from Councilwoman Herk, a second from Counciloman. All those in favor say I. I I oppose. The eyes have it. >> Uh and then I set items 50 through 54 for public hearing. >> Second. >> We have a motion from Councilwoman Her Councilwoman Herk, a second from Councilman Mascalo to set the public hearings from items 50 through 54. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Eyes have it unanimously. Thank you so much. Those items have been sent. I'd like to have a motion to open the 10 a.m. public hearings. >> Second. >> Okay. We also have a motion to a motion to open all public hearings. We have a motion from Councilman Mencco, a second from Council Miranda. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Eyes have it. Item number 55. [clears throat] >> Who's here for item 55 staffwise? And uh CTTV, can we get the monitors at Council Das uh up please? They're black. >> Any staff for item 55? Mr. Collins, can you hear us? [clears throat] We cannot hear or see you. There we are. Check your microphone, Danny. We can see you, but we can't hear you yet. They meet on his end or CTTV. Is he Is he muted on your end? >> You hear me? There we go. >> Mr. Collins, item 55, please. >> Um, good afternoon, council. Uh, this is Dan Collins with your planning commission staff. So, um, item number 55 is filed number TACPA 253. Uh, this is a comprehensive plan amendment to amend the CBD per bonus specifically within the channel district CRA boundaries as of January 1st, 2025. Uh the city council approved this amendment uh at its first reading consideration on September 25th and is back before you uh today for second reading consideration. And this concludes my presentation. >> Thank you. Does council have any questions? >> Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak to item 55? We get a motion to close. >> Second. >> Motion to close council man. A second from Councilman Randall. Those in favor say I. I. Oppose. The eyes have it. Councilman uh Carlson, would you like to read item 55, please? Move item number 55, file number TACBAPA25-03, ordinance amending the Tampa Conversary Plan Future land use section to offer an additional bonus for projects located within the Channel District Community Redevelopment Area boundaries as of January 1st, 2025, providing for repeal of all ordinance and conflict provide recipive date. >> Thank you. I have a motion for Councilman Carlson, a second from Councilman Vieiraa. Please record your vote. Motion carried unanimously. >> Very good. Mr. Collins, item 56. [snorts] >> Uh Danny Collins again with your planning commission staff. Item 56 is file number uh TACPH2505. This is a comprehensive plan map amendment to amend the future land use map for the property located at 1300 East Harbor Street and Channelside uh Street. Uh this would assign uh the public semi-public future land use designation on the subject site. Um the city council approved this amendment at its first reading on September 25th and is back before you today for second reading consideration. And this concludes my presentation. >> Does council have any questions? Hearing none. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak to item 56? We get a motion to close, please. >> Second. >> We have a motion from council mask, second councilman, please record. All those in favor say I. I oppose. Eyes have it. Thank you. Please record your vote. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilman Vier, please. >> Yes, sir. No worries, sir. Um, I move an ordinance presented for second reading and adoption ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan future land use element, future land use map for the proper located 1300 East Harbor Street in Channelside Drive, assigning public semip future land use designation, providing for repeal of all ordinances and conflict, providing for sale to providing an effective date. >> Well, well read, Councilman Vera. Second from Councilman Maniscalo. Please record your vote. >> Motion carried unanimously. >> Thank you, Mr. Collins. 57. We're on a roll. >> Item 57 is file number TACPA 258. This is a comprehensive plan map amendment to amend the future land use map for the property located at 2406 North Boulevard from residential 10 to residential 20. Uh the city council approved this amendment at first reading. on September 25th and is back before you today for second reading consideration. Does >> council [clears throat] have any questions? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak to item 57? Seeing none, can we get a motion to close? >> Have a motion close. Councilman Escalo, a second from Council Miranda. Councilwoman Herek, >> we need all those in favor clos. I oppose. Eyes have it unanimously. Counciloman Councilwoman Herk. >> Thank you. File number TACPA2-08, ordinance being presented for second reading and adoption. An ordinance amending the Tamper comprehensive plan future land use element future land use map for the property located at 2306 [clears throat] North Boulevard from residential 10 R10 to residential 20 R20 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict providing for severability providing an effective date. >> Second. >> We have a motion for Councilwoman Herzek, a second for Councilman Scalo. Please record your vote. [clears throat] >> Motion carry unanimously. Thank you very much, Mr. Collins. Item 58. >> Item 58 is TACPA uh 2512. It's a comprehensive plan map amendment to amend the future land use map for the property located at 3618 West Uklid Avenue u from residential 20 to community mixuse 35. Uh the city council approved this amendment at its first reading on September 25th and is back before you today for second reading consideration. >> Thank you. Does council have any questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak to item 58? >> Motion. >> We have a motion to close from Council Menalo, a second from Councilwoman Herk. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Eyes have it. Council Mano, would you read item 58? >> Thank you very much. I have an ordinance being presented for second reading and adoption ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan, future land use element, future land use map for the property located at 3618 West Uklid Avenue from residential 20 R20 to community mixuse 35, CMU35. providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for separability, providing an effective date. >> Thank you. We have a motion from Council MCO, second from Council Miranda. Please record your vote. >> Motion carried unanimously. >> Thank you very much. Okay, the uh 10:00 hearings are public hearings. The next ones are quasi judicial. If you are here to speak or testify in any one of these hearings, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by our clerk. [snorts] Yes. >> Thank you very much. Item 59. >> Uh good afternoon, chairman and uh city council Leota Bartle development coordination. Um item number 59 is AB22506 for the property located at 1616 East 7th Avenue, unit 1624. The request is for alcoholic beverage sales, small venue classification for beer and wine consumption on premises only. Site plan modifications were required between first and second readings. Those changes have been made and completed. The plan has been certified and has and a copy has been provided to the clerk. Um I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you. Does council have any questions? Applicant >> uh Steve Molini. I'm here on behalf of the petitioner. Uh you might recall this is art gallery and retail. Um, second floor only, beer and wine. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Does >> council have any questions? Hearing none. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak to item 59? Is there a motion to close? >> A motion to close. Counciloman Scott, second from Councilwoman Herk. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. The eyes have it. >> Councilman, no. Oh, that's right. You didn't vote. Council Cross, would you read it on 59, please? Move item number 59, file number AB2-25-06, an ordinance approving a special use permit SU2 for alcoholic beverage sale, small venue consumption on premise only and making lawful the sale of beer and wine at or from that certain lot plot or track of land located at 1616 East 7th Avenue, unit 1624, 2nd floor only, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described in section two, providing that all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict of repeal providing effective Okay. Thank you. We have a motion from Councilman Carlson, a second from Councilman Mascalo. Please record your vote. >> Motion carried with Miranda voting no and Vier being absent at vote. >> Thank you, Council. Very good. Item number 60. >> Thank you again, Councilman Chairman. Um item number 60 is AB2 2518. This is for the property located at 4121 Henderson Boulevard. The request is for alcoholic beverage sales, small venue classification for beer and wine consumption on premises and package sales off premises consumption. Site plan modifications were required between first and second readings. Those changes have been made. Plan has been certified and provided to the clerk. I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you. Does council have any questions? Hearing none. Applicant. >> Um, good afternoon. Megan Smith, 400 North Ashley Drive. As Leah mentioned, everything has been resubmitted and we're available for any questions. >> Thank you. Council have any questions? Hearing none. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak to this item? >> Move to close. >> Have a motion to close from Council Miranda, second from Council Mask. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. The eyes have unansely. Please record your vote. >> Oh, read it. Yeah. That's the second time I've done that, right? So, we'll go back to Council Mand on this one. >> Thank you, Chairman. Item number 60, file number AB225-8. Ordinance being presented for second reading adoption ordinance approving a special use permit SU2 alcohol, beverage sales, small venue consumption and premise and package sales off premise consumption and making law for the sale of beer, wine at or from that certain lot, plot, or track of land located at 4121 Henderson Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. We're particularly describing section two providing that all ordinance or parts of ordinance of conflict are repealed providing for an effective date. >> Second. >> Thank you. We have a commotion for council a second from Councilman Vieira. Please record your vote. >> Motion carried unanimously. >> Very good. Okay. Now we are moving on to the 10:30 hearings for the and this action is petition to vacate public hearing on legislative matters. We're hearing item 32 along with 61. >> Good afternoon, council. Abby Philly, administrator of development and economic opportunity for the city, and with me today is Deputy City Attorney Morris Massie. um before you today. This is the second reading for the development agreement for um the observation wheel as well as the lease amendment um to the lease for the Florida Aquarium. The lease amendment is item number 32 and the development agreement is item number 61. I do have a quick presentation um and then we will I will turn it over um to Mr. Shimberg. Both Mr. Massie and I are here if there are questions. >> Thank you. >> Um right now uh the lease I'll talk about the lease lease amendment first. Um the city does own the parking lot that is adjacent to the Florida Aquarium and we are in a lease agreement right now with the Florida Aquarium um for the parking. Uh there's also a operating agreement that goes with that parking and a revenue share agreement that goes with that as well. And that's important because I'm going to talk about that in just a minute. as this area um for the aquarium came to the city asking for the ability to subleasase a portion of the property that they currently lease from us and that is what is before you today that lease amendment. Um and then part of that amendment includes an exhibit which would now be a sub lease and that sub lease has the terms of the agreement and I'm going to go into those in just a minute. um the project that is before you today and the suble this is a completely privately funded um project. So in terms of the subleasase agreement there are a couple things that are in there that is a a pass through rent. Um and that the term of that is a 5% a $75,000 minimum or 5% of the revenues whichever is more. So, um, and that is for revenues greater than $7 million, which is the break even point, um, for the, um, the wheel. So, an example of that is if $12 million in revenue came in, the city would be getting $250,000 on the 12 million because it's on what is above the 7 million. Those revenues are not only ticket sales. Those revenues are ticket sales, food and beverage, photo opportunity, whatever their gross revenues are. Um, one thing that is outstanding is that there are bonds that are on the aquarium and the payout on those bonds is about another two years. So, should the wheel become operational during that time, the city cannot receive revenue um on the because we still have the bonds that are being paid off. So what will happen is we are going to get a double payment on the first year that we are eligible for our payment up to two double payments um to make up for that time period um that we could not collect those revenues. There were questions during the last hearing about insurance and ademnification. Um both the city and the aquarium as terms of the sub lease must be listed as additional insured parties. Um and the operator has agreed to indemnify both the city and the aquarium um from and against any claim, damage or expense in connection and also from any liability. Uh the parking the aquarium is receiving funds um to offset the parking spaces that will be given up. Part of that is the city's revenue share. So we will be getting our share to keep us whole as to terms of the agreement today. And lastly, the sub lease um matches the terms of the aquariums lease. So that is through 2039. Um there was a comment made this morning for 20some years under public comment. It is only through 2039. Um which where we are today it'll be 2026. Um next in a few months that so it's just about 13 years. If for some chance um the aquarium defaults or we stop our lease with the aquarium prior to that period, we are committed to keep our lease with the wheel um till the 2039. In terms of the development agreement, um the development agreement governs the design construction operation which includes the height. Um, and we talked about this at the first hearing to go from the 175 to the 250. [clears throat] That allowance is specific and solely to the observation wheel. Um, it does not uh serve as precedent for other development and additional language was added in there. Um, in response to the matter raised by Councilman Carlson. Um, in terms of design, there is language now in there. U Mr. Morris Massie did provide a strike through underlined showing the changes in the DA that concern design, landscaping, architectural treatment, encroach, there is no encroachment into the right of way um and that the street frontage must be maintained um with high quality pedestrian experience and that was in relation to um chairman Clintennon's comments that were raised at the first hearing as well. There is a requirement for a lighting plan also to be provided to ensure that there will not be spill into the surrounding residential areas. There are operating hours from 10:00 a.m. to midnight. Um and there is also a condition that no city or CRA funding will be utilized um for this project or [clears throat] applied for in relation to this project. And then um that the development agreement ends when the sub lease terminates. So, this will not run past the operation of this or run it does not run quote unquote with the land. It runs with the project. >> Unless there is any questions now, I'll turn it over to Mr. Shimberg. >> I just say thank you for incorporating all of the laundry list of concerns that I had in the very initial meeting. So, thank you. >> Yes, council. >> Same. I the questions were answered because I was hearing uh you know 30-year lease, you're telling me it's 2039. Um in regards to insurance and indemnification, I mean, we're held harmless. It's as as you're adding additional insured parties. Um we're covered in that aspect. In regards to revenue, I think I asked that question. You know, what what do we get from this? We're giving up public land. Uh we're taking how many spaces was it? 50 spaces that are lost but the revenue was a minimum of 75,000 but if the revenue goes above 7 million and you put an example here of what the city gets in return um you mentioned lighting uh because I asked about lighting I didn't ask about outdoor music is music going to be played is this going to be I mean I don't I don't know how is this going to work um because you have residential areas right there >> the the applicant will next year. >> Okay. So, that's my question. Is there going to be amplified music? Is it going to be like like a carnival ride where you just hear all the noise, you know? So, other than that, I'm looking I think all my questions were answered from what I had asked last time. Thank you very much, >> Councilwoman Herk. >> Thank you. Is there anything in the um in the resolution that talks about dimming after a certain hour? Um because I we did get an email this morning that did talk about the concerns that you know a lot of the people who live in those towers live in Florida ceiling glass and they're not going to be able to sleep until midnight and that's just not fair. >> Part of what was added as a condition to the development agreement was they have to provide a lighting plan that has to be part of the part of the project. it gets approved by the city as part of the permitting to minimize the glare on nearby residential pro projects. That condition also provides that they will minimize the lighting when the wheel is not in operation. So that is in the development agreement. >> But that's not that's not my question. My question is like after you know say 10 p.m. from 10 p.m. to midnight it needs to be a lot lower or something like that. This that's the concern that I'm I from this resident and it makes a lot of sense. And typically in a lighting plan, I mean they'll show they can put the baromet you know photometrics around to show what the spill is from certain distances and that would be in that plan. I don't believe that's been developed to date but if the desire is that at such time I mean when we do it normally it's no spill at all like you can't have that. So it will need to be contained. I believe it's a series of uplights and things that but I'll let the applicant speak to that. But if there is a modification that you would like to that that's still this is we still have an ability to make those changes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Very good. No other questions. We'll hear from the applicant. >> Jim. Good afternoon, council members. Jim Shimberg with Schubin Law Group representing the Tampa Wheel. Um we just wanted to provide a couple of updates and I think staff's done a great job. First, I want to I want to thank Morris Massie and Abby Phy and Dennis Roerro for their efforts over the last few weeks to work closely with us to try to address comments. I know Councilwoman Hertch had, you know, urged us to, you know, do as much community outreach as possible. After the last hearing, our team spent time talking to all the people that were here as long as they were here. We then did very broad outreach and city helped us with notification, but we had a meeting at the Florida Aquarium that was noticed to everybody that was in person after business hours. We followed that up with the virtual option several days later. So, you know, we believe we've we've listened to council and tried to get the word out as much as possible. There may be a few residents here that want to speak to that. Um, you know, we worked closely with the channel District Advisory Committee and other aspects of the city to help us get the word out. Um, Mr. Mr. Miller will speak on the on the lighting in just one second. A client has confirmed that there was not to be any amplified music or noise associated with this. Um, you know, we we believe that we've we've worked hard to try to show the the community that we will be good neighbors. You know, the woman that spoke this morning during the public comments section and I spent quite a bit of time outside talking to her about all of her her concerns. And, you know, I don't think I don't know if she's here now, but I she at least felt better about it after I explained some of the stuff to her. You know, her concerns were more about the whether people would be able to afford to ride it or not. And I think those concerns have not have not manifest in other locations where these wheels are located. And we're not expecting people from Tampa to come down here and ride it every week. We're expecting people to take advantage. If you have visitors in town from out of town and you want to show them, you know, an amazing view from 250 ft. Obviously, cruise ship passengers, aquarium visitors, people that are already down in that area, we expect to be the majority of the ridership. Again, one one last thing. The the issue that we worked out with city staff that had to do with the $7 million 7 mill that's based on, you know, an average of 350,000 riders a year at $20, which equals $7 million that obviously we've also included food and beverage and photographs and other things. So, the city gets the benefit of all that. That's a very conservative estimate that our clients have come up with. We really feel like the numbers will be closer to 500,000 or higher. um which would provide the city with you know significant revenue and above in addition to the 75,000 but but Miss Phely did a great job negotiating on behalf of the city. Mr. Massie spent tremendous amount of time working on the legal documents and Mr. O'Hara obviously was looking out for the city's financial interest as well to make sure it didn't adversely impact your bonds in any way. Mr. Carlson's comment about not setting a precedent for any type of other development in that area. Just like the woman I was speaking to outside, I was saying, you know, if you ever wanted to put a condo there at some point, this doesn't create a precedent protection. She goes, "Oh, no, I don't want a condo there." You know, so, um, this is this is aquarium parking at least from the city. We're reimbursing, you know, all the money plus some for the spaces because I don't think they get coverage all the time for those spaces right now. Um, and you know, if at some point in the future, and I've been involved 10 years ago for when the port had some potential plans to redevelop this area and 250 story towers and things that never really materialize, but if if the city and the port and everybody else decides at some point that they want to redevelop that portion between Channelside Drive and the water, that'll be a long process. It'll have a lot of community engagement and there will be plenty of time to, you know, relocate this particular attraction if necessary, although we don't anticipate that's going to happen in the next 10 years. So, I'm here to answer any additional questions. We have the rest of our project team here, including representative [clears throat] from Stantech, Mr. Miller. Let him just address the lighting really quickly. >> Uh Tony Miller with Tampa Bay Wheel. Uh we spoke to uh the residents and we addressed four main concerns that we knew that we heard consistently. Uh one was traffic, one was noise, one was lighting, and one was just the design. Does it feel like it fits the city? By far and away the biggest uh I think issue was lighting. And one of the things that we want to we let them know that part of the permitting process was that we were going to have to submit a lighting package that was going to be agreeable u when we're going through the permitting process. Um and we shared with them that we have the ability to turn the lights way down that we do have control that there's five different components of lighting and that we do have the ability to do that. in most wheels that are similar to what we're dealing with. The Seattle wheels is an example. A lot of similar characteristics uh worked with those condo folks and post 9:00 we were dimming the lights. 10:00 we're closed most of the nights. So we are really adamant about being good neighbors. We want to listen and so um we have no issues with making sure that the u lighting is addressed to the satisfaction of the the folks that are living in the channel District area. Councilwoman Herk, >> I just have a um a follow-up question about that. So So you're going to be able to dim the lights at 900 pm starting at 9, >> correct? >> And you said hours here say 10:00 a.m. to midnight, but you're saying 1000 p.m. I'm >> There are So there are >> max hours >> to get into the um kind of five lighting packages. Just to make it give you a little bit better context, there's uh lights that are on the gondilas. Those lights we need to keep on, but those create no light outflow that's going to uh be a problem for people. The light that goes around the rim is another one that we need to keep on, but again, that's not something that's creating a lot of outflow light. Those just let people know that the ride is open. Those are really the ones that we need to maintain between that 9 to midnight time frame. The other ones, you've got spoke, you've got hub, and then you've got light uh uplighting. All of those can be controlled, dimmed to almost completely turned off. So we can manage that light outflow um to the degree that it does not create any intrusion for uh the c or the uh residents that live in the area. >> The one other issue that is I think it's important to recognize is the hours that it's allowed to operate go from 10:00 a.m. to midnight. They're not necessarily going to be open every night till midnight. There may be some nights when there's not that much business or there may, you know, New Year's Eve they might be open till midnight Friday and Saturday. So, you know, they're going to they're going to run a business and they're going to obviously they're partners with the city. So, they want to try to maximize the revenue, generate as much revenue for themselves and for the city as possible, but they're not going to [clears throat] be open from 10:00 to midnight if there's nobody down there. Correct. >> Typically, it's Friday, Friday and Saturday night. Additionally, I again I I don't know how to how to put this in a resolution or do something, but I really do appreciate you reaching out to the community and what I would ask is that as you develop this lighting plan, you do another set of meetings so that people can understand once you have come up with an agreement with the lighting plan, set another meeting h uh do the outreach you did before. I think that is what I'm hearing a con the biggest concern as you said that you had heard >> I think that's another good time to mention there will be no amplified sound there will be this I mean I just think that that again >> once you have a solid plan make sure the community knows about it and gets some feedback that's the way that you get people to really >> um uh create the open dialogue and then make sure people know how to contact you in the beginning months because that's when you're going to have the problems. >> I'm going to give Tony cell phone right now. [laughter] >> No, but but I'm saying like if if the the concerns we've heard about this are numerous and I am still on the fence, but I I don't think my vote will matter. I think you have the votes you need, but I'm I I'm still very concerned about this because the what I'm hearing from the public is that they are concerned and that's the only way to really make them feel better is to bring the plan forward, have them be a part of it. And I think that uh to that point uh when we had our meeting, I think that we we didn't probably change a lot of minds in terms of the people that were really not for this project. And we don't expect that everybody is going to be for the project. That what the takeaway from the residents was is that we do in fact want to be good neighbors and that we do want to be partners in this with the city and do the right thing. And I know that there's going to be some people that will speak again here today and I know that some of them may have been at that meeting. So I'm not asking them to to uh speak on behalf of us other than to say did they feel that we did in fact listen and that we that it did feel like hey we are going to try to be really good partners with them and do the right thing. And I I believe that the people that were at that meeting walked away feeling higher level of comfort around the knowledge that we are there to listen to them in an honest and earnest way and that we do want to work with them and to address their concerns. So um I I I don't know taking a little risk asking the folks that are here to see if what their thoughts were of that. But I I believe that is the case. And again, the last point I'll just make is that I was asking the clients during our lunch break, you know, when do you think the best case scenario that we can get this open would be? And, you know, we're hoping that, you know, within a little more than a year that we could have it open. You know, Abby addressed the two years the bonds are paid off. So hopefully with, you know, by prior next November, we'll be able to get it open. And prior to that, we'll be able to as part of our outreach to have, you know, reach out to all the people. We have all the we have a great list now, a great way to to reach out to people, let them know, hey, we're going to have a meeting and we're going to tell everybody about this great opportunity that's coming. We'll obviously make sure to show them that we're good neighbors, that we want to be good neighbors, give them contact information for people that are going to be running it in case there is a complaint at one night where somebody's lights going into their window, whatever. So, yeah, we're absolutely committed to being good neighbors and to try to work with the the people in the channel district who, you know, we want this to be a positive thing for their community and the city. I don't know if this is a question for you or a statement from you and then a question for staff. Um, is there I don't remember seeing a provision in the uh agreement that uh allows for later hours for special events like New Year's Eve or Super Bowl or >> Yeah. I mean, is that is that not >> We're not asking for any ever ability to go beyond 12. >> No. >> And we don't, like I said, we're not going to be open to 12 every night, but we don't ever anticipate >> I'm just thinking about special events maybe that you want to have that ability. >> I mean, we we don't need that, right? No. >> Okay. I'm trying to help you out here. >> I appreciate [laughter] that. The way the provision the way the re the way the provision reads is that the hour general hours of operation can be varied between the aquarium and and the the wheel operator but generally they can't operate before 10 or after midnight without the city's consent. So >> so that they could come to the >> potentially come and ask but we'd have to say it's okay and that was put in to protect the residents in channel sign. >> Okay, sounds good. Okay, very good. Okay, is that it? >> You done? Okay, no other questions. Uh staff, you're good with that as well. Okay. Is anybody in the audience that wishes to speak to this item? If you would just come and line up on the wall, I'll I will call you up in the order that you show up on the wall. Sir, in the fancy charcoal suit. Well, start with your name, please. >> Sure. My name is Chris Lancaster. Um, I was one of the people who actually showed up and Mr. Miller's right. Um, they did do their best to reach out to um to residents and frankly if anybody came away from that meeting not feeling like they're partners or that they're not trying to be partners, I think they were at the wrong meeting. personally. Um I am here today though to talk about specifically um city ordinance 1947 which is Tampa's lighting ordinance that says nothing shall be allowable on the premises within the corporate limits of the city provided for in this chapter that shall in any way be offensive or noxious by reason of emission of odors, gases, dust, smoke, light, vibration, or noise. There's some stuff about animals which is not relevant here. nor shall anything be constructed or maintained that would in any way constitute an isore or a nuisance to adjacent property owners or residents to the community. Specifically, what is in the development agreement? And am I able to show this here? >> You you guys will have to forgive me because it's a photo on my on my >> There's a wheel on the top of the projector on the very very top. If you It'll zoom in. >> All right. So, it says lighting of the project at night shall be designed to minimize glare or to Oh, do you have it? You have the red lines. Wow. Amazing. That's so nice. >> See, staff is good in that. >> All right, fantastic. Um, the specific concern that we have on B is that for special occasions and for nights and weekends, this this attraction is open till midnight. Um, that's really tough with lighting that will be there. One thing that staff had mentioned, and please correct me if I'm wrong, uh, that lighting should have no extrusion if that's the case. I have a really hard time believing that the rim lights that need to be on while the wheel is in operation will conform to 1947. That being said, we understand this is a give and take. I believe that we need to start acting like good neighbors toward the developers who are here because I think this is going to pass. Whether I whether I object to it or not, I think that's irrelevant. Um, but that being said, I'm asking for a little bit more specificity around what does dimming look like? What is the lux that we're allowed to do? Uh, I am the person I'm really glad that you guys keep running long in the morning because I actually get to show up in the afternoon. Um, but um, basically like everybody in my building who lives on the fourth floor has 20 foot floor to ceiling windows and if we have to um, create items that uh, diffuse that light or whatever, that's a pretty solid encumbrance for us because like I don't get to drill into my walls without coming and getting permitting. So, um, we're encouraging council to be a little more specific on this particular point just because I don't think developers can do anything about parking more than they already have. I think they're showing that they want to be good neighbors and so on and so forth. Um, the last thing that I will ask y'all though, just because I I wonder if there are some people who are on the fence, is I want to hearken back to the invocation. You know, I live my life in that um I love my neighbors as myself. And so I ask you, if you were standing in my position right now and you had to vote yes to this and it was your family and your child who might be impacted by this, would you still vote yes? Thank you for your time. Thank you, >> Miss Huitt. >> Good afternoon, Allison Hwitt. Um, not here to speak against uh the project. I'm here because I historically come here about policy and procedure and as a East Tampa resident, I am uh completely offended that uh something like the wheel gets moved and fasttrack and you were here in matter of weeks and months and we do a pre-development program and it takes five years and it still hasn't rolled out. um and policies and procedures and statutes are important to me also as you've seen me uh be able to talk about and Florida statute 163.380 um make sure that before any property located within the CRA is uh leased or subleasased or sold, it has to be open for bid for the for the public. We hear this in other projects. We hear that you hold us to it in other other areas that the CRA property owns. We can't do anything until we go through this big RFP process. Well, this is the same thing. The city of Tampa has already been in court. City of Tampa, Tampa Heights, uh Tampa Heights Riverfront community. Um the second district court of appeals held that the city violated Florida law when it amended a lease to transfer a public building to a private developer without issuing an RFP. If we're going to do what we need to do for this one, we need to make sure we're standing for the people here too, who don't have the money for a lobbyist, who don't have the money to be able to have all the advertisements. And if you're going to treat them this way, you've got to treat everyone else in the CRA the same. >> Miss Pointer, >> good afternoon. Stephanie Pointer. Um, and I think Allison just brought up a big issue. Um, I'd like to point out that I got a text message a few minutes ago that the Meridian and Channelside Lofts phase one were not contacted per the HOA presidents and uh folks who live there. I I just I I've not heard anything about anybody having anything positive to say about this. And I don't give a flip about this. I really don't. I I swear I don't care because I will never spend the money to get on that Joker and no nor will my family. So, you know, I I don't I don't really have a vested interest in this except for the fact that I find it hard to believe that these folks have met with the public repeatedly when all I have seen on social media is negative. Not just negative, but nasty negative about it. And I I got to stand up for my neighborhoods. Have they actually truly Where's the evidence? Where's the sign-in sheets? Let's see them because I know last I heard you guys only got a couple positive letters from people who are in development or do development or that's their main field of expertise. But you know if what Allison says is true. Oh my goodness. Let's not violate state statutes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Hearing none else. No one else. Councilwoman her. >> Well, I mean I now I'm going to ask Mr. Massie to come up and address that because obviously we want to make sure >> I do want to address that issue actually. >> Thank you. >> What the Riverside Heights decision says is that we cannot dispose of an interest in an city-owned land in a CRA without going through the RFP process. This interest has already been disposed of. We've already entered into a lease with the aquarium. We are amending that lease to allow consenting to the subleasase. That's all really we're doing. It's the the contractual arrangement really is between the aquarium and the wheel operator. Um I do not believe that runs a file of the CRA statute or Florida law or the Riverside Heights decision. I um because we are not disposing of an interest. We've already disposed of that interest. We've already given that interest to the aquarium. All we're doing is consenting to to the sub lease allowing the aquarium to subleasase the property. That's >> it. Any anything else? >> Okay. Can we get a motion to close? >> No rebuttal. >> No. >> Before we close, I just want to put on the record that I have not spoke to anyone there regarding this subject matter at all. Anyone who's come before me. Let me clear that out. >> Okay. Is you want a rebuttal? >> Uh just real quick. Um I know that the point was raised about uh what we've done to reach out to uh everybody. Uh, and I do want to I I'd asked that we get uh some specifics around that just so um to address that very specifically what we did uh within 24 hours of uh Councilwoman Herac's suggestion that we need to talk to the residents um in a much more meaningful way. Um we uh sent emails with uh and we sent this by the way to council. So you saw the notification that we put together. We tried to be a lot more clear than what the original notice was that, you know, we're mandated by law to go to the 390 residents within 300 feet. So, we did something much more significant. Um, we sent it out to, um, Sky House, we sent it out to the Grand View, Channel Club, uh, 101 North Meridian, the Towers, and the Place, all of which uh, forwarded those emails onto their residents. Uh, one of them could not do that. So we went and we s took flyers down there and we made sure that we uh um at least put some flyers up to create notice. We sent it to uh city city put it on its Facebook page to provide notice. We sent it out to more than 180 individuals who had previously expressed interest in channel district matters. that was through the CAC and we also sent it out to um the uh city council members uh copies of notices uh that anybody who' sent something to city council uh about this issue uh we made sure that notification got out to all of them as well. So um we feel like we did within a 24-hour period yman's work to try to get this out to as many of the local residents as possible. And I would like to address the idea that um what you've heard uh online is what I would um expect to be uh the negative. Uh there's not a lot of people that get online and talk about the positive. But I do think that there is a overwhelming majority of people who are very supportive of this project and will find great value of it. And while I respect the um the voice of those that are not for it um and they're vocal, uh it does not reflect the majority. So I I think it's uh does not characterize the the support for this project. Hopefully that gives you some context. >> One last thing, we also said all the registered neighborhood associations within the area. So >> thank you. Can I ask staff, what is the legal requirement for notifications for this for this particular item? publish the two notice. >> They're required to publish the notice twice at least eight days before the hearing. >> Name, sorry. >> Morris Massie, deputy city attorney. Um they're supposed to publish the notice twice, eight days before each public hearing, which they have done. And then they're required to notice the same prox the same radius distance as if it was a resoning. So they've noticed all the individual property owners within 300 ft plus all the registered neighborhood and organizations which normally would obtain a uh notice letter regarding a reasonzoning. Um so they and they've complied with all of those requirements. >> And I I I just say that because I think there's just a misunderstanding in the public about what this council considers notification and what we can hold people accountable for. And what you just heard from the applicant is they went way above and beyond on all of that. So that's I mean >> Mr. planned. Can I just mention one thing really quick? And we also again the parcel that we're talking about is about 7 acres. The portion that the wheel is going to be on is a little bit less than half an acre. We did our notice from the 7 acre parcel, not the halfacre parcel just to even increase the notice even further. Thank you. Thank you. Very good. Anything else? Anybody else? Okay. [snorts] Hearing nothing else. Can we get a motion to close? >> We have a motion to close from council. Second from Councilman Pierre. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Eyes have it. Can I get a motion to move item 32? >> We have a motion for Councilman Vera to move item 32. We have a second for Councilman Escalo. Councilman Hererte, I I said I was on the fence about this, but I just we might get more than $75,000, but to me that's just not worth the risk. And I know that I'm I'm in the minority, but I I just think that $75,000 is not worth um the community's frustration and and the light and the other issues. And so I'm going to respectfully uh vote no. >> Council Carlson. >> Yeah. Um I appreciate the all the the extra work that the applicant went through and and the city staff in doing all this. Um my um my concern is um um the impact on the aquarium. Um the the families in my district anyway have been up in arms about the aquarium's decision to get rid of the splash pad and replace it with sea lines or whatever they're doing. They think that was a bad decision, that it was misguided, and um uh they're questioning their membership, and now they're complaining because they think they they say parking is already limited and we're going to be even more inconvenience than that. Um if this was on private property, if if that section was private property, um whether I like the idea or not, I might I might say okay. But since this is city property and it's adjacent to aquarium, I think the aquarium is making a second bad decision here that will hurt their business in the long run. and even though they think it's okay, um I'm not going to do anything that hurts the aquarium. And so I despite all the great efforts of the applicant, everyone, I'm I'm going to vote no. Thank >> Well, I I'm I'm going to just say that uh one, I think something that's lost in this is that is the economic development opportunities and jobs. And I see this in a lot of these projects that we that come before us. We nobody that we don't discuss that a lot. And that so this is while there may be only a few jobs directly tied to the daily operation there's other jobs that are associated with this and and you know being a business person you know one economic opportunities expands to greater o opportunities because if you drive you drive more people there it's going to be an opportunity for other jobs to be created in the area and so there there's there's and then just honestly the uh you know the B-roll the uh the impact on this has is the image of the city of Tampa and looking and every time you know every time there's going to be a a televised game or a lightning match or or something else in or convention in downtown Tampa that that role is going to show this and I think it's going to it's it's going to be uh beneficial for the city of Tampa. So, I think that that's it's definitely a consideration. It's funny though, you know, my my family are seasonal passholders for the aquarium and we're actually excited about sea lions and puffins and all of that. I think it's going to be it's going to be make it a really unique and interesting experience. But, uh that's my input. Councilman Miranda, did you want to say? >> I just want to say thank you, Mr. Chairman. U I'm going to support the the project and you know, if you just go back 20 years, just 20 years, that's not much in a lifetime, but 20 years ago, what was on channel side? Nothing. Nothing. You had citrus nitrate. You had a Coca-Cola plant. You had banana docks with rats and bananas everywhere. You had prostitution. You had drug addicts. You had anything you can think of that wasn't pleasant. However, that's not the city of Tampa today. Today, through efforts to about three or four different mayors, five really included, they all were different and they all wanted to make the city better when they left and when they received it. [clears throat] And what I see now, Tampa is not the city. Tampa that I lived in, that I was born in, it was nothing more but cigar makers, grateful people that really brought the city to where it was. High standard of quality of life. We didn't have anything and we had everything. Now we have everything. We have nothing. Nobody wants change. City of Tampa has changed. It's more of a tourist destination now than anything else. Don't don't believe me. Just look at the records of occupied hotel ranked in this in the whole country of United States of America and tell me where we're at. We wouldn't we didn't even have a hotel. We had a convention center without a hotel. We didn't have a damn thing. Let me put it in plain English. So where am I going to go backwards again? My kids weren't even staying here when they went to college somewhere else. They stayed there. Now they're here. University of Tampa had enrollment of about a thousand when I was there. Now it's enrollment of 11,500 greater than pro uh Princeton and Wake Forest and enrollment to have over 50,000 applicants for 1100 spaces at the University of Tampa and we're still not happy and you know what we're never going to be happy. That's our mentality. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Councilman Vier. >> Thank you very much Mr. Mr. Chairman, I I'm going to support this and and some of the reasons have been stated and and Chairman Clanden, I think, gave out some good uh views with regards to what you said, the B-roll. You know, I I think that is very very true and um it is going to be something that that people can use in the area. It's going to be something that's only going to benefit the area. Um and I think it's going to further elevate our city. I always say I'm a mediator and always say that there's black and white in life and then there's gray. Of course, there's going to be some detriment to this. Um I don't think anybody um potential detriment to this. Um I I but I think the good far 50 to1 outweighs any of the bad. I will say this though uh which is you know this is further you know putting more enterprise putting more activities in this area and what I'm going to say has nothing to do with this project at all but it is another reason why we need an additional fire station in this area downtown. I know right. It's the same I'm beating the drum. Okay. Call me Ringo Star, whatever. But but it's so true, which is we continue to build out there, have more activities out there, and how in the hell we don't have another fire station or some plan for that right now. It blows my mind. But but I'll be glad to support it. I am I am never going to call you Ringoar. >> I know. >> Um I know. >> You know, I I'll I'll close this up because it sounded like Charlie Miranda. Did you want to speak? >> You get me talking, I'll tell a story. >> No. >> Okay. No. No. But I mean I I mean I remember when when you know Sandy Freeman dropped that aquarium there. People the same negativity we hear about this is what we heard back then. Oh that's crazy. That's not economically viable. You put in an aquarium and it's all it's just slum and there warehouses and nobody's going to go down there. Nobody's going to visit that aquarium. Then Mayor Greco built a street car. Oh that's ridiculous. That's crazy. Who's going to take a street car through all this area? You know it's like it's it's it's like so it's really the same thing. And you know, you have somebody that's coming in with $20 million of their own money. I'm not going to question their their decision whether they're going to make money or not. I'm assuming they've done their due diligence and understand the business model better than I do as an air traffic controller and a and a and a lousy politician. But uh you know, and we talk about the tourists in this area. It's not just residential. How many hotels do we have down there now? We got more coming in in the Channelside area between Channelside and Water Street and and uh downtown. I mean, how many hotels and how many uh hotel rooms which generate taxes, which generate those bed taxes that help pay for all of these great things we have. We love bed taxes, by the way. Councilman Maskco, >> real quick, I I wanted to talk about this the other day, but I think this is appropriate. So, I take day trips to other cities to see how they do. Denver is on my list coming up because they have public transportation. And Tampa, we don't have public transportation that we [snorts] deserve, right? But if I were to take a day trip to Tampa, I'm an outsider. I get to the airport and I take the number 30 bus. It takes me into downtown. This is growing up. We didn't have this. So 25 years ago to now, look at the difference. You can see the museum of art. You can go to the riverwalk, right? You see downtown. You take the street car, you go through water street, you stop at the aquarium, right? Along the way there's hotels. There's spark sparkman warf. The street car takes you into eore city. You can have a cigar, which is, you know, talking about what do you want to explore in Tampa? You can go to the Columbia restaurant, ride, you know, an institution that is over a century old on and you can take the street car back to the bus stop that'll take you back to the airport. So to show you how Tampa's changed in the last 25 years, you didn't have that. There was no reason to go downtown. There was a museum of art. Uh but beyond that, we didn't have we didn't have the Riverwalk. We didn't have the street. Well, the street car came in, you know, around that time. But look at how Tampa has changed. you know, you can come to Tampa, make a day trip, explore our culture and history, and make it back to get your return flight home in that same day. So, we're growing, we're changing. And uh I just want to put that. >> So, as a board member of the Tampa Theater, I think they're going to object the fact that you did not say the Tampa Theater on that trip. >> If there's an afternoon showing [laughter] superstar or something, as they do every year, yes, but yeah, you can take a what is it? A 3:00 summer movie classic, whatever. But, um yeah, it's interesting. You know, we we talk about the lack of in Tampa, but we really we've come a long way. >> We're adding them one one at a time. We're adding to it. Yeah. So, Councilman Carlson. >> Yeah. Just just quickly, um in the in the 80s and 90s, we were trying to play [clears throat] catch-up with other cities and we added things where we had to check the box. The economic development people said, "Well, you have to have a performing arts center. You have to have a museum. You have to have um a convention center. you have to have then a hotel for the convention center and you have to have better movie theaters and Starbucks and all these things. Now in the last 10 years we have graduated into the time where we are redeveloping those projects to make them uniquely Tampa. So as the new Tampa Museum of Art come on came on board whether you like it or not it's a new kind of architecture it's a different style on the inside with the investments that they're making it's going to be even more different than before. Uh we are redeveloping the Stra Center, the Florida Aquarium, although other cities had aquariums, the design was was very unique in the way they did it. And at least in the beginning, the way they curated it was very different. Um I think as you're trying to decide which city to go to or think about your experiences, you want it to be different. And a lot of cities have these wheels. The thing that I would ask these guys to do is um a lot of the experience is defined by the videos that are running inside them and and the the experience of getting ready to get on it. I would just ask them to try to make it if if it passes, which it sounds like it will, try to make it uniquely Tampa. Um let's try to we don't want people to get it and say, "Well, I did the same thing in Singapore or or London or or Orlando or wherever." We It would be better if people got in it and said, "Wow, I really experienced Tampa while I was in there in whatever way." Thank. Isn't it amazing though that you just put us in the same sentences of London and Singapore? Okay. So, did I leave it up to who who moved and seconded that? >> I think I did. >> Okay. So, we we had a motion from Councilman Vier, second from Councilman Mencalo. All those in favor say I. >> I opposed. >> Nay. >> Okay. >> Motion carried with Vieira. I'm sorry, with her tech and Carlson voting no. >> Thank you. Okay. So, now we are going to uh >> Okay. Um, now is that a uh we have to read this one or no? >> No. >> We've moved 32. >> 61. >> So now 61. So we have a motion to move item 61 by council mask. A second from Councilman Vieira. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. The eyes have it. >> Okay. Four to two. >> Motion carried with her tech and Carlson voting no. >> Very good. Thank you. Congratulations. Uh yes, we are now at 73 per our agenda review. >> We'll give everybody a second to filter out. >> Did you guys do consent already? >> Yes, >> we did. >> It was fabulous. >> Super fast and a real thrill for everybody. That was a request by Councilwoman Herk during agenda review to hear 73 before 66 and 67. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Who is going to present 73? Ah, the stars of the show. >> Hey, good afternoon, Council. Uh, Brandon Campbell, um, director, interim director of the mobility department. I do have you on here uh who will be giving the presentation uh for item number 73 the um lower peninsula project report and then of course um at your at your uh direction your pleasure we will move to 66 and 67 uh we have some support here for those as well. So I will uh turn it over to you on Okay, go ahead. Start with your name, please. >> Good afternoon, council. uh UNL mobility stormwater and we appreciate this opportunity to uh have a overview of lower peninsula storm stormwater capital improvement which is a highly successful um design build project currently in closed out phase. This is a motion and 10 specific questions that the council is seeking information related to project schedule uh uh budget cost uh deliverables and benefits. Our agenda today pretty much follows the order of these questions. Next to the agenda is a project map which is located in uh lower peninsula watershed which is about 86 8.6 grams in South Tampa and where the uh frequent flooding existed during due to inadequate and aging storm water infrastructure. So this project consists of design and construction of new storm water convince collection and outfall system and also a stormwater pond in the middle of MCDO48 park and to provide uh flood relief as well as uh water quality treatment. This project also includes various upgrades to the water infrastructure and major timelines are identified in this slide and the notice proceed was issued at the end of 2020 and the final design was delivered about a year after the NTP and council approved a guaranteed max price in July 2022 and the construction has lasted about three ers and we just did the final walk through about two weeks ago and in the process of uh closing out this project by November. And I do want to mention that this fact the first part of this project was in the middle of a pandemic. The schedule of the project was minimally impacted. In fact, some tasks were delivered even high of the schedule such as the design. And this table summarizes the project budget including the pre-construction services as two amendments and GMP and a single change order with a total of 59 million. And this slide delves into uh the details of uh the design scope of work. And you can see the budget is about 3.5 million in total. There are two amendment including uh water distribution redesign and additional services allowances. Guaranteed max price is about $55 million with a single change order. And due to uh the cost increase as we mentioned was in part of the pandemic and the cost and labor went up and there were request for uh cost increase from the park amenities as well as waterman upgrades. And this table summarizes um the uh usage of contentious funds. And and uh uh as mentioned most most of these are associated with labor and material cost increase and also we have to uh deal with field conditions to accom uh modify the design. sometimes accommodated the field conditions sometimes to address the public requests and the approval of usage of uh contingency money follow a very strict appro uh system and we fully verify them and also documented them and this is a summary of cost of uh Kman's subcontractors you can see a big chunk of money went to materials and uh followed by the various professional services most likely uh most most uh related to the pre-construction services and this is a summary of deliverables or uh meable outcomes of the project. This is uh including both storm water water based water infrastructure and the newly paved road and park and the stormwater pond. And this slide summarize the key implementation date. There is about two years apart between the first and the last piece of the box installed. And McD 48 park was open to public about a year ago. As mentioned, despite the pandemic and other things going on, uh this project has stayed on schedule for the most part and with manner justifications to accommodate school start and uh hurricane and additional work and this is the uh project spending to date. uh we do not have the final number yet but we anticipate this project will be delivered under budget and I used the capital funds will stay in the stormwater motor capital program. One possible use that we have already identified is the failure wetland monitoring obligation that required by the by the FD. uh tremendous benefits are uh being brought by this project. Most uh both hard and soft including uh flood relief uh improved water quality and natural system enhancement and parks and we do want to uh highlight a couple of things. Uh this is another successful case that we have successfully collaborate between storm water and water to minimize the disruption to the neighborhood. Instead of twice, we just do them once. And also we save the cost for the restoration with a parallel effort for their pip uh replacement program. And another thing that uh we want to emphasize is the uh uh resilience and sustainability of the neighborhood. Uh there are many recent articles talking about uh reduced the home values uh in the floodprone areas after hurricanes especially and uh we uh [clears throat] and uh we have seen uh those discussions and also uh we we see the uh people moving out of these flat zones and the business left this flat zones. uh with this implementation of this project we are confident as the community is staying strong with generations to come and the city has been very lucky to receive various funds for the stormwater capital improvement projects for this particular one about twothirds of the funding are provided by uh state and regional agencies the awarded projects not only engineering son but they are highly cost effective and the medical benefits are being brought to the community and also this uh project received uh various uh professional awards from the organizations. Uh I just I do want to uh recognize our design build team Atkins and uh Caymans are here today and for their outstanding work. Uh again we are excited this completion of this project and appreciates the opportunity to reflect this project with the council and uh the project team will conduct a in-depth uh like uh closeout session and we use the lessons learned to further improve the delivery or of CIPs. With that we appreciate any comments questions that you may have. >> Thank you very much for the presentation. Councilwoman Herk. [clears throat] >> Thank you. Um I just want to remind council the reason I wanted to do this and a reason I think we should do this for large projects going forward is it gives us a good idea of looking back because we're the ones that fund it. We're the ones that see and for this I thought this was particularly interesting how um it was a $55 million GMP. They completely used the entire um contingency fee and then we had a change order on top of it. So I had a question. I don't know that Mr. Mutterbach is here, but I I'm and maybe Mr. O'Hara can answer this. Um, what are the average cons contingency percentages for a project like this or if Brandon if you know if anybody knows hop on? >> Yeah, we do have contract administration staff. >> Okay, this looks like somebody from Kimmans maybe might. Yeah, come on up. If you know, anybody knows, come on up because this is uh this is one of those things that that uh as you're learning, we're learning as we we fund these projects and what we can expect. >> All right. Good afternoon, city council. My name is Albert Callaway. I'm the manager for construction engineering inspections division of contract admin. I'm filling in for Mr. Motorback today. So, uh these GMPS are negotiated with the owner departments whether storm water or water or wastewater whoever. Uh typical uh contingencies that I see on our projects are ranging between five and 8%. >> And and we usually stay well within that. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you. And that that's again good. So in this project, does anyone know what that contingency I I'm I can do math, but not that kind of math. [laughter] >> Unfortunately, I don't have that exact number. This project had multiple contingencies. >> Five. Okay. I'm I'm I'm seeing five in the back from someone. So it was a 5% contingency. Okay. That's good to know that we were on the lower side on this project. And as we look at projects going forward, I think it's really important for us to take a look at that. Um, the thing I was confused about is you said, um, Miss Sharf has the actual CIP. Miss Sharf, if you could pop that on the wolf. [clears throat] If we could have that up on the wolf. Um, thank you. And if you shove it up just a wee bit. Okay, there we go. So, right now, um, this is the bond series that we we had a bunch of money in this project and we had 20 million, uh, from the bond series in this lower peninsula watershed plan and it does not seem that this 20 million was used. So, you talked about um uh Miss Lee about possibly using the capital overage for monitoring and I don't know that we can use capital funds for that. Can you expand on what you intend to do with the rest of this 20.9 million or Mr. Roher or one or the other if uh whoever wants to talk about this. And I'm I'm curious why it sat in this account when we clearly have known for at least 6 months that it was not going to be needed. >> Yes, ma'am. Dennis Raero, chief financial officer. Good afternoon, council. I can't speak to the monitoring portion, but we have known for some time that this bond funding would not be needed for this. We anticipate bringing it to council as part of the larger South Howard project as a funding source for that. >> And and so this this though goes to the question of we just went through a budget process and I'm just curious of the rationale why you didn't bring it during the budget process and why it's still here. >> Understood. Understood. Twofold. Primarily, we wanted to bring it forward along with the the guaranteed maximum price, the GMP, when we get that for the South Howard project because it's such an unknown right now. We also wanted to make sure that this project was closed out without any unknown surfacing that we'd need this funding for. We felt that bringing the GMP and a financial resolution grabbing this funding for South Howard would give the council and the public a more holistic a a more full picture of the funding uh the funding mechanisms for that project. >> And then um if actually I still have more questions for you if if uh CCDV could go back to the wolf. So, we have gotten some questions and you may have well seen them as and this this is where I transitioned into 66 and 67 a bit. >> Yes. >> Right now, we took off the out these series bonds in when did when did the when did we actually um Oh, I'm sorry. The bond issuance date was November. >> November. >> And we've only used 5%. Why in the world did we take so much money out if at this point we have not spent any of it and are still just just paying for the interest? >> Good question. At the time, of course, let me back up for a second. Philosophically, we don't want to issue debt until we think we're going to need the money because we want to avoid this very scenario, >> but life happens. So, I can speak to the fact that at the time, we issued the debt because we thought we'd need the money a lot sooner than it appears we did. Now, I think that does have some uh some factors associated with that are the timing of the project, the progress of the project. For instance, I think we thought we'd have more uh we'd have either a GMP or be closer to a GMP at this time than we are now, obviously. So, all I can say is at the point in time, we thought we need the money a lot sooner than we than we have needed it. >> Okay? Because that's something that that um the public brought to our attention. And to be honest, I I completely get it. >> So, uh, so from this, and I I'll just tell you, I may have it together today. I might have to wait till next week, but I really do want a recounting of that. I think this body needs to know a recounting of pretty much all of our bonds. Where are we? Um, and is this happening elsewhere or is this the only bond fund where we're paying on and just not using? and and from that also I mean we got a uh reimbursement resolution that was that was saying more money even though we had this money and so I'm I'm again we kind of want to talk about all of this together. Uh but I to go back to this project first of all I want to say it's a phenomenal project. I got a chance to go out there. I mean even they even had eagle scouts building eagle was it some type of bird housing. Was it eagle housing? That seems that seems like not right, but maybe I think it was housing for eagles or housing for some type of owls. That's what it was. It was an owl housing and it was very cute. And the the the walking path is beautiful and all I hear is wonderful things about the park. Uh and I encourage any resident who hasn't been down there uh it's far from my house and I have made the trek because it is just such a beautiful space. Um, and again I want to appreciate that out of this $55 million or 59 million so far, we received grants of almost $37 million. It was $37.5 million, which is huge. And I would be remiss if I didn't say thank you to both um Mr. O'Hara's team, Stormwater team, everyone else who had anything to do with that. uh getting more of our own money back as I like to say to spend on projects is really really beneficial and really appreciated. But that was and I really do appreciate the the rundown and I expect to I would like to see this more on some of our big projects to just give council an idea of what happens in the end. We always see the beginning of the project but we never get a financial recounting in the end. And so I want to say thank you so much for doing this exercise with me. I know it was a lot of work in the background, but I think we'll get used to this and uh I do expect um that that we'll have more questions moving forward, but I was particularly interested in that extra $20 million. So, >> and if I can if I can postcript that man, yes, this this project has been a stellar success and our success with all of that grant funding, you know, is one of the reasons that mitigated the necessity for that bond funding. So, >> Exactly. Exactly. And so, um, I think that's a wonderful thing. And again, I really do appreciate, um, [clears throat] how, uh, now, okay. Yeah. >> Can I go to Council Carlson? >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, >> Councilman Carlson. >> Sometimes it's an advantage to go second. Um, first of all, thank you to staff. Thank you to um, Kimmans. Um, Kimmans did an outstanding job on this. where there are other projects where we've heard complaints. I think Mr. I don't know how you pronounce it. Zamina or Zamina, you're in the back. Um, but thank you. He's on the Harbor Island project on this one. Every he's he and his team are fantastic at following up with community and you can see the quality of the work they done working with staff. Um the concerns that that I've had about the next project we're going to talk about especially in and in and some of the other projects is is the politics around it. Um you know when the political people of the city show up at public meetings you you kind of suspect you're kind of suspect and um as folks have said we need to let the [clears throat] the the scientists and engineers um lead. Um, unfortunately, we did not have, as far as I can tell, the person who was in charge of stormwater before didn't have a stormwater degree. And so, anyway, we need to hear from stormwater engineers that have experience. And UN, Miss Lee obviously is is one of those, and we've got others on board, plus we've got some outside ones. Um the the the big question that the public has had about this administration and there were there was a a a team of of um constituents digging into documents, digging in the bond documents is is why is the public not being given a choice? Why is city council not being a choice about how to spend this money? >> Uh this um this South Hour project is divisive. Uh the mayor's inserted dirty politics in it. Some of the neighbors in the in that neighborhood have inserted negative politics in it. unnecessarily and we should discuss these on the merits of them. As somebody mentioned earlier, we're required to have the biggest the broadest impact on the public. Um we already know from testimony of the former director and others that it's barely this pro the south project is barely going to impact um Palomasia Pines and it's not going to help uh Parkland estates except uh in a regular storm. It's not going to help. >> We're we're going to hit this. I'm leading to this. So, so the the the question is knowing that that is a controversial project that's full of politics, we should have been given a choice of how to spend this money. Also, I would like in accounting, maybe you can tell us now of what's left of of each of the funds that's coming forward. As I understand it, if as we if we decide on a $und00 million project, we're going to have to raise stormwater taxes to address it. If we have $20 million that we can apply without without going into more debt for a hundred million dollar project that's questionable about whether it's going to be effective and I'll talk more about that in a minute. I would rather apply it more broadly. We've got maybe 20 neighborhoods in South Tampa, not to mention Forest Hills that have been adversely affected. Um Yuen and her team Brandon have been out to the to those uh neighbors with me. Th those neighbors have stories that are equally as bad or worse as the Parkland states people. But we know because of um either maintenance or infrastructure that needs to be replaced that that we we can help we can help hundreds if not thousands of people who are flooded uh by reapplying even $20 million across smaller projects throughout. I think the public deserves to know what the alternatives are. If we're if we have a hundred million dollar project that's questionable at best, that's going to require more debt and maybe a tax increase, we should be able to look at what the alternatives are so that so that we and the public can make our best decision with the best recommendation of staff as to which projects deserve to help the public and we need to make sure that it's in the public interest and protecting the most people possible. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councilman Vo. >> Thank you very much. And and I do want to say something because I I've heard a lot of times. So first off with this >> muted. >> I'll be [laughter] that's a message. >> I need that button. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> So you know what I'm going to do is muted >> pursuant to that I will I will defer my comments to when we get to the um the section on on the South Howard project. So I'll defer I'll defer. >> Okay. Very good. So There we go. So, muted work. I need that button. So, um if there's no other questions on 73, is there any other questions on 73? Thank you very much. It was a great presentation, by the way. Thank you very much for the presentation. Um so, now we are going to move on to 66 and 67. >> Okay. Uh good afternoon again. Brandon Campbell, interim director of the mobility department. I'm gonna move this real quick. Um, I know this was uploaded uh to OnBase, but just for expediency, I went ahead. It's It's confusing up here because we can see the other presentation. So, if you move that away. Yeah, >> perfect. Thank you. >> Is that better? >> Yep. Perfect. >> Uh, so item 66 uh is the approval of a guaranteed maximum price for early works uh pro early works work related to the South Howard project. I did want to uh bring up to your attention today that uh of course the segments that are being considered for uh approval today are not Howard itself and are outlined in the map that I've put on the projector. They are related to uh uh water main replacement as well as mill and overlay and overlay work resurfacing work uh within uh six uh total segments across the neighborhood on the east and west side uh of Howard Avenue. some of the questions that I know have have come up with you all and in public comment are related to uh the financing and so of course Mr. Raero is here to uh answer some of those questions as as uh may come up in the course of conversation and I also wanted to mention that uh we have Rory Jones on as a panelist as the primary uh cost in this initial early works GMP is uh for that waterline replacement work. so he can speak to the needs of the water system uh that are represented by this. >> You know, Councilwoman, >> thank you. Um I just be I just want to set the table on this uh because there's two items. One is the total number 66. It's the 4.1 million. Item 67 is just moving 3.2 2 million from water into to help pay for. So what we're really looking at is the less than a million dollars left. How is that getting paid funded? So, >> and and so I spoke to you this morning and you talked to me about the storm water bonds, but what I'm hearing from the public, from us as a council just overall are concern about spending those spending funds under the umbrella of the South Howard project. And so I would like to hear from from maybe uh uh Mr. Jones's uh point of view. From your point of view, Mr. Campbell, if there's a way that we could do these projects that need to get done anyway, from my understanding, the water manes are from 1919. So, they need to get replaced anyway, and it's coming out of the water budget, not the South Howard budget. if we could make that a separate project and the milling and overlay possibly a separate project out of your funding while we still here because we don't have a guaranteed maximum price for this project. We're not far enough along in this project. I think that we could move this along as something that just needs to get done anyway. >> Can I not not attached? >> Yeah. I I want to kind of like So you're setting the table. I want to kind of like reset it too because it goes back to the beginning when we were doing the uh the agenda review. And one of the reasons why I asked to continue this instead of dealing with this today because one I think you're right. No, I think I think you're right that that this this this has to be broken out. But there's a there's a bigger overlying issue here that anything that's under this the South because you know I I was a I was a supporter of the South Howard project. I have subsequently found out new information that has changed possibly changed my point of view on that one. And I'll just say this, there's there's financial issues with how much money is left in the storm water u pool available for us to spend and that if we were to fully fund the South Howard project, there will be zero money left for any other flood projects in the city of Tampa. That it is going to take all of the money for uh >> and we'd still have to raise taxes. >> Yeah. and and and and what that just sets the table is that we would have to come back to the public and I know Guido would really look forward to voting again on a storm water infrastructure tax increase. [laughter] He's got PTSD from the last time around. So, so and because of the and and Councilwoman Herk, you're right that this, you know, we don't have the total amount yet, but we have an indication of where it's heading and it's going to suck up all of the money. There will be zero left. So it's it's I think I think at this point the problem here's the problem with even I think what we do is we you know we can express our intent and ask them bring us back a clean thing that comes out of water and mobility but I think we need to be very specific and clear that there's a lot of issues that are involved now in South Howard. you know, we've got the we've already authorized the money for the design and all, but before we move forward, and I think that's why I picked the February date, that there's got to be a lot of transparency and data coming back to this council so that we truly understand the financial impact that this will have on the city of Tampa and for the entire city of Tampa, you know, and what we're sacrificing. And part of that what I would like to see if we have a motion to continue this is an understanding of evaluation of where where the other unmet needs are in the city. Um how this ranks with other needs. What if if not this then what if we do part of this and part of that is that you know has have we had that table discussion? Have we have we have we done have we done this in a in a transparent way to bring us on board to say maybe we could do part of this project and part of another project to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. But I mean I think that I think we have to give them until like February to get that data back to us so that we fully understand the consequences of these actions. And again I'm talking about somebody who came in really un unashamed to support this project. I mean, I' I've supported and voted for it every single time, but again, finding out that the pot is dry and this is going to dry it up for everybody else absent another t tax increase, um, it it caused me a great deal of concern. And I will say one thing that I did here and this is this is a testimony and and on the benefit of the city of Tampa and staff this data is was because of the transparency of the city of Tampa this information became available and had we not had this transparent information we would not you know if if they were acting in the dark we would not have been this information would not been available to us. >> It's not transparent at all. What happened is that is that one of the neighbors was looking at the city budget. they couldn't find it. So they looked in the bond documents and that's where they found what the cash flow was related to this and that's when they a constituent discovered this and that and that and then suddenly the I guess the administration responded and gave you a heads up but the constituents told me a few days ago and so the the issue is not whether we want to spend money to help people or not. The question is how much money do we have? Why is there money being hidden in a fund that could be used to help people immediately? we could have helped people a year ago instead of waiting for a project that's questionable and then to move what what always happens is we they come to us in little bites so we approve 20 million of this project and then they come back and say well to get we need we're already down the road you've already approved it several times to get the other 80 million all you need to do is raise the stormwater tax and that's not going to be acceptable to the public. We need to look at it holistically and more importantly we need to look at at how many hundreds of people could we help just with that 20 million without having to raise taxes. Why are we why do we have to spend all this money? Why? Why is it that that we've all been shoved down this funnel of assuming that this is the best project? And contrary to what one of the neighbors and and and the mayor's office are saying, this is not about Burns. It's not about the businesses on Howard. That's just chaff to confuse people. It's about the hundreds of people who were flooded that we could get relief right now. We've got coverts that have not been cleaned in decades and they're falling apart. They're cracked. They're leaking. Um, we've got all kinds of uh maintenance and replacement of infrastructure that could be done to help people today. We could have applied that $20 million already and protected those people instead of waiting for a project that's questionable. But back to council member her tax point, I told Rory yesterday or day before on the call, he has a great reputation. The new people at Stormwater have great reputation, but with Rory and and the water department, why do they want to be connected in any way to a controversial project in five years? uh this when this if this project is for in five years when it's done and this mayor's gone and some of the some of the city council members are gone we're going to find out that it's not effective and as somebody said this morning there's not going to be any money to fix it and there's not going to be money to fix anybody else's work. So we need a full discussion on this thing right now but the water project should be completely separate. We should not be mixing pipes water. That people are still mad about their water bills and if they find out that we're using pipes money on on a questionable project, they're going to be mad just like people are mad that we use stormwater budgets to for parades. We we we need to be honest and transparent with the public and and and and trust the public and in listening to all the different alternatives and how we can best help people. think >> well to move this on what I'd like to hear from council can I let me say this but just to set this again what I'd like to somehow to get to this point I would like to see someone make the motion to continue this item to after after public comment and after everything else it'll be fine so um after this is done I'm trying to set like an agenda after it's done what I'll be looking for is a motion to continue this item to the February 26 20 uh 20 February 26 26 that's hard to say workshop And then I would also probably wish to we could wave the rules for somebody to request staff come back with a a clean resolution. You already have it. Perfect. >> No, not a clean resolution, but I've got a whole motion. >> Okay. Okay. A whole motion. And one of those would be to for the water and the mobility infrastructure improvements. >> This is all about bonds. >> Okay. So, but I would like to have somebody come back with a resolution asking water to come back with a resolution just specifying just the water project and the mobility project for paving and uh and just have that as a clean resolution. And then and then after we're done, I'll defer to you with what else you want to introduce. But that's what my my what what I would like to see come out of this. Councilman Rand, >> along the same thing, Mr. Chairman, you you talked about the pipes program >> and why is it intermingled? I guess that's what it said. I would imagine that there's a savings of not opening the the land twice for the same problem to help the citizens of the city of Tampa. I mean, that's how I've been sitting here listening very well. And what I get is common sense would tell me if you're going to dig it twice, why not do it once and don't have to do it twice? So, that's what I see coming. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I have it. Maybe I'm in orbit, but I don't think I am. So if you're going to dig one hole to put one pipe, why don't you dig that one hole and put the remaining of the citizens what they need in their neighborhood while you're there with one open hole. That's how I looked at it, but maybe I'm wrong. >> This is different holes. >> Yeah, this can so >> this is not the this is not too >> if I may speak uh to the segments that are uh under consideration today, these older water manes and Rory maybe may want to chime in as well. Uh the intent with this is uh to replace them to reduce the risk of breakage if and when South Howard is is under put the map back up for the public to see. >> Thank you. >> So what what we don't want to have is we've got a segment of South Howard closed and uh whether it's Morrison or or uh Albany, any of these really. uh if if there's a water line that breaks during construction on Howard, that could compound the effect of of uh construction on traffic. So, the intent is get the water lines that are at risk nearby replaced because they need to be replaced anyway. Uh and then also to have a smoother surface on those uh more highly traveled uh segments that that'll have higher volume uh when Howard is under construction. That's why uh they are packaged as early works. That's why they are being uh brought before you right now. Um I did want to speak uh as well. I know Councilman Vieira asked about what would the impact be of uh continuing this to January as this schedule is built out right now. Um if we were to wait until January to approve this, it does uh basically eliminate the margin between these these early work segments and the planned start of construction for South Howard. So there could be uh a secondary impact on the main part of the project uh schedule if this is delayed until early next year. >> Councilman Scott, >> so a couple of concerns regarding we're going to have to raise the fee. We're going to have to raise the fee, right? Excuse me. And I don't I don't mean to interrupt, but there have been some allegations and assertions made during this discussion that I I'd like to clarify and refute that. That's one of them. >> Okay. So, I'll speak and then I mean if you want to clarify it, but will we have to raise the fee? Will all the money that is dedicated that $251 [clears throat] million run out because this project, the Howard project, will balloon to a price that's so high, let's say $100 million beyond the 65, whatever, that we end up running out of money in that 30-year assessment period that we have. I don't know. there might be a misunderstanding and and and I know you'll clarify, you know, what it's going to be. Here's the thing. when I was sold this uh almost 10 years ago, okay, it was this was going to be so historically significant and I didn't want to support it because I kept going to the previous mayor saying instead of raising or creating this fee, we can do this and I kept talking about maintenance and we're doing certain things wrong and these storm drains and and it's a it's another story for another day. I the last thing I wanted to do was to uh add an extra fee on somebody's property tax bill because that's where they see it. But it was as I was told after it passed, somebody said, [snorts and clears throat] "We're going to look back and and and and we're going to be glad that we did this. Now that I'm hearing, we're going to run out of the money and and you might you may correct this after this after what I what I say. uh and we won't be able to use we won't have any funds to do other storm water projects, capital improvement projects throughout the city. That concerns me. That may not be true. I don't know. But we see how the the cost of everything has gone up since co supply chain issues. Now we have tariffs. Now we have, you know, it's ex, you know, reasons and excuses why everything is more expensive. When the mayor proposed a millage increase, I you know, I even got my own Tiger Bay forum to discuss, you know, why I voted against it. The cost of living is so expensive in the city of Tampa, concerned, and I might be wrong, that we may have to look at raising more fees, bonding more out, spending more money. Uh people are up to here with their bills. And uh and I don't want to be one to say, "Oh, we're going to need more. We're going to need we're going to need to raise more fees." So maybe everything I've said and some of the stuff that [clears throat] I've heard is not correct and and you might clarify that, but um I'll let you answer before I I speak any further because there might be >> misinformation there. So >> Mr. O'Hara, go ahead. Start with >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Councilman. Yes, there is there is some misinformation out there. Um if I can address this uh item first. Of course, this is the debt report from August 31st, 2025 that was on the Wolf before. uh entirely correct and I can say it's entirely correct. That's my product. >> Yeah. >> Okay. We we >> took it from >> right right again further to the transparency issue which I'll continue to speak to. We publish this every month. It's available to council of course and the public on the website so council and the public knows exactly what's happening with all of our debt issuances. Uh Councilman Carlson, I I thought you had a very good question. Uh I'm paraphrasing Shouldn't city council get the choice of what to do with this $20 million in in in bonds? And the answer is that is council's choice. We haven't brought it to city council to to make a choice. We have plans. We have plans on top of plans on top of plans because we've got to plan for every unknown we can. This is one of our plans to use this funding to mitigate the adverse impact to the improvement assessment which I'll talk more about in just a moment. Um, thank you Mr. Chair. You had forwarded a a great deal of data from from a citizen. I I appreciate the data. I appreciate someone looking at the information. But again, I will surface 90% of the information looked at was my product. The bond documents, my office creates them. Okay. The uh the debt updates, again, we publish them. The budget, we publish it. The annual financial reports, we publish that. Again, it's a complex document. Both the annual financial reports and the budget, but it's out there. And of course, our job is to try to make it easy for council and the lay person to understand it. So if I having said that if I could level set when we initiated this effort when we started on this improvement assessment journey you will recall and I don't want to speak for the department but it started out at about a quarter of a billion dollar plan worth of projects. Over the course of not quite 30 years we have outperformed that metric. We have we have spent over $300 million in storm water projects because of our fantastic efforts and working relationships with grantors, whether it's Resilient Florida, etc. We talked about that earlier. That plan includes project A, project B, project C, and an ongoing amount for continued maintenance. I'll show it to you in just a moment, but it's been about five or six million historically. When we say we're running out of money, and we haven't said that candidly, we wouldn't allow city council to entertain a scenario where we run out of money. What's being surfaced is will there be additional funding for new projects outside of that initial plan? I don't know. But it's not unreasonable to think that new projects outside of that initial plan will necessitate additional funding. Whether it's from grants, whether it's from an assessment increase, we don't know. That is one of the purposes of the watershed master plan to decide do we need to do a rate study and is that rate study likely to show we need to raise rates. So let me be very clear. the initial plan is continuing as planned. You've heard it you've heard me say before, plan the dive, dive the plan. And that and that's what we're doing. If we're entertaining new projects and the author of that information you said to me, sir, specified new projects and the author is not incorrect. We may need additional funding. We don't know yet. >> What I can tell you is that we are in our forecast. I'll show you. Let me tell you. Will you will you entertain me? I have some. >> Yes, go ahead. >> Oh, thank you. Thank you. >> By the way, our facil our facilitators in the room just so you know too. >> So don't scare them off. >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. [laughter] >> Facilitators not for us. [laughter] >> If I can go to the wolf. Almost said Elmo to the wolf again. If we can get that >> zoom it out. >> Yeah. Can you move the other one out of the way? So, we're looking there. >> This is our capital improvement program that city council just approved a short time ago. And you see, you can't see if I'm pointing here, can you? And you see a beginning fund balance rather, you know, relatively large of 13 plus million. You have our non-abboral revenues we talked about and you have the projects you see here. That's the typical maintenance. Okay? And relatively low, very high in 26 as we spend down that fund balance as planned. And then then the number I referenced earlier, maybe seven and a half, five and a half, five and a half, six and a half. And I'll show you those projects in just a moment. A very small operating amount. and then the various debt services for those bonds. And you see we go from a little over 12.5 million and this in 2030 if we continue with the plan. That's where we get very tight. And that is the plan because in our longer term forecasts you see a very low fund balance continuing. There's no running out of money. We're simply we simply don't anticipate we're going to have additional funding to do new projects yet. And and again, that is one of the large unknowns. One of, if I may, one of the pieces of inaccurate information feeding the running out of money narrative in that document was using $39 million of the improvement assessment. That's that's that's not accurate. I don't know what the source was, but we anticipate using just a little over 8 million about 15th of the improvement assessment. Why? Because we need to continue with the plan. Indeed, that's one of the reasons we're looking to that lower peninsula lower peninsula $20 million to mitigate the necessity to use more of the improvement assessment. And I know I'm throwing a lot of information at you, but a lot of information's been thrown uh, you know, at us in a very short period of time. And I don't want anyone, I'm not trying to dissuade you from continuing any item. But I don't want anyone, council or the public to go too far down the road with misinformation or information that, well, we don't agree with. For instance, we think we've been very transparent and indeed much of that product was based on our product. >> So, Mr. Roaro, I I >> That's why we need to continue. >> Yeah. Exactly. So, I I one thing if I had known about the $29 million 29 million, right, left over >> $20 million of le I would have slept better last night. >> So, uh you know, because that wasn't disclosed. I think my last conversation with with John was at 8:30 last night or something like that on this on this issue. >> Well, then I was remiss in not making sure you're aware of that, sir. >> Okay. Um, but that being said, I don't think it's a misstatement of fact that how it looks projected out now that if we that you say continue with the plan, if the plan means that South Howard is the last and only project that we're going to fund with the current assessment, then I guess you're correct and that that is but but if we if we fund the South Howard project, the plan is over. There's no other f there's no other money to fund anything else. Is that incorrect? >> There is almost almost. And again, I don't I I don't want to I don't want to split hairs. I just want to make sure again we're we're all on the same page. We don't anticipate any additional funding to fund any new projects >> that haven't already been considered. >> Right. So that so I I don't think that there's misinformation shared earlier in this discussion. I think I think that was part of maybe my dis my my displeasure with that is not understanding that this this cost Yeah, I got I'm sorry. that this this cost this was this and nothing else. And considering it is a enormous city and as was council Carlson brought up in district 7 that the flooding that occurred off of Fowler and Forest Hills flooding that is occurring you know there's there's still a lot of unmet needs with storm water freshwater flooding you we're not even talking about storm surge flooding we're talking about flash water freshwater flooding there's still an enormous so I think in in my weighing this out had that been fully disclosed from the beginning I may have said let's let's look at a smaller project. Let's look at how we can mitigate some here, mitigate some there rather than wholesale accept this knowing that this was going to run out the entire fund without a tax increase to do the other projects that we'd be looking at. I'll end it there and recognize council. >> Uh thank you very much. So, a couple of things we I have a a couple of strong things to say. Number one, with regards to revenue for things, um I I operate under the view that the public hates waste. There are things that we pass here that if we told the public about, they'd be really angry. And I mean that. They'd be really and they are angry about certain things that we pass. The public is not angry about cops, about firefighters, or about hurricane infrastructures. The public will pay for that. The Republicans will pay for that. Democrats will pay for that. Independents will pay for that. Wig party members will pay for that. Everybody will because these are things that the public supports. Okay? I operate under that view. In 2023, I strongly oppose the mayor's proposed tax increase. I sought to scale it back 70% to use all of the money for police officers and firefighters because I go off that view. I go off that view and I and I and I believe that's true here with regards to the issues of the South Howard project. Um we have to see as to whether or not proceeding with this as planned would exhaust all of the existing funds. Uh that's that's something we certainly need to look at. I I [clears throat] if we're going to have a continuence, I would like to talk about a shorter continuence than February or or or January, look at November, December, something of that nature to not delay the project because right now this council supports this project. I will speak for myself for Luis Eduardo Viera, which is I gave my word to that community that I would support them because I saw their suffering in person and and I gave my word to them and I'm and my word is my bond on this issue and I rely on the experts on this issue and the experts tell me this will work and that's what I'm relying on. When it comes to North Tampa, we have funded the backup pumps. We funded the pump generators to help out the North Tampa area. Um, I am a zealous zealous advocate for district 7. Okay, zealous advocate for district 7. It second time I use this word today, it pisses me off what happened in North Tampa. Okay, it does with the pumps. Those people were in zone X and they got flooded. And the day after the flood, statements were made on the flooding being not as bad or be being worse than it could have been because of the pumps. I'm still angry about that and I don't forget about that. And when it comes to advocating for for that area, I have always packed a punch. I never gave up on the housing dollars. I continue to push for the pump issues and so forth and anything else that we're told that could help us out long term in the North Tampa area. I do not like to say that I'm going to look at one part of the city and say we need to do it here as opposed to there. We should be able to afford as a city to tell people in in in in areas where they're going to be flooded that we're going to help them, that we're going to have requisite and necessary hurricane infrastructure. If we can't do that as a city, then to quote Willie Nelson, tell turn out the lights, the party's over, okay? Because the city's not doing its job. If we can't do that for Forest Hills, for South Tampa, for East Tampa, for Sulphur Springs, all over West Tampa, Eore, and so forth, then we're like a Subway sandwich store that doesn't have any bread. What are we doing? Okay. So, when it comes to our word that we've given this community, I think we ought to go forward with it. Let's ask the questions. A reasonable continuence that doesn't delay the project substantially or or potentially increase costs, I can support that. That's fine. I can do that. Um, but going out to February when we're told that that could delay the project significantly, that's a little too much. I'll give you a single but not a triple. That's it. Thank you. >> So, January 29th is also available. >> And let's see what >> Okay, Councilwoman Herz, >> thank you. [clears throat] One quick question, then I do have some things to say. Can you bring a motion for separate water and mobility a separate water and mobility project next week? >> I I can from from a dollars and cents perspective, we absolutely can, but I'd defer to the department on the logistics or or the complications associated with that. So I I guess my my question to you would be is is the expectation that we just package a funding resolution together that does I'm I'm not sure exactly I guess what the what the request is. >> No. So so the water money is coming from the water department. Can it simply now be a water department project. the the can can and and the reason we're asking you to parse this out is that we're still don't right now we need to talk a little more about the South Howard project but doing this work going forward this particular work needs to be done anyway. >> Yes. So, is there a way that we can package this water main separately and and bring us a resolution at our next regular meeting so that we can fund that through water? >> I don't know. >> Rory, are [laughter] you Rory, are you online? >> I I think I think it's more of a Dennis question. >> Well, let let me uh let me educate myself very very briefly. My >> He looks comfy. >> My under Hey, >> loving that ceiling. My my understanding >> is these >> got pictures of us on the >> they're they're intertwined. This project is intertwined, right? You're going in and I'm making this up, but you're you're you're tearing up the road. So, you got to do a water thing, you got to do a something else thing, you got a storm water thing, and then you repair the road. That is not the case. >> It is for many of the segments, not every segment. Not this. Right. Right. what we're talking about right now. The the map, if you could put it back on, it clearly says that water is the blue dotted line and you are simply replacing the mains there. >> So, >> and repaving it after you replace. >> Yes. So, most of the segments have both water and resurfacing. >> Yes. But but that's it. Nothing else. No storm water. Correct. This is simply water and repaving. >> Yes. So what we're asking is that if you take this water and repaving and make it a separate entity that does not have the term South Howard stormwater relief on it. >> So the complication with separating like linguistically uh South Howard relief from all of this effort is that Kimman's under the South Howard contract is the one that has put forth the GMP proposal uh as well as the design. So if we were to take this out alto together uh and try to create a brand new project uh I would assume that then means we have to get a new contract to perform that work which imposes a significant [clears throat] >> so so again no I mean this is what they do with normal projects they combine it all together >> but I would like to have known that that would have been good information to have. Yes, but this is and and and I want to apologize to my council members because I did not realize that this very long planned McDill 48 presentation was going to be on the same day. So, I've known about this extra 20 million all week. So, I've been working on trying to figure out like what So, so, so we've had some questions about that 20 million and not knowing and finding out today where and that is where we predicted it would go. my office, but um but just being able to talk about it with you all, which is why I wanted to talk about it today and not move it, not continue it right away. Um so, if that being said, I am more inclined to approve the project today to actually fix the pipes and the roads just to do that because that's all that's happening here. And the majority of that money is coming from water. That [clears throat] being said, Mr. O'Hara is right. This was in the CIP. This is in our monthly reports. I even noted during the budget cycle. I have a note somewhere. I did we never ended up talking about it because we didn't talk about uh the CIP, but I did notice the amount that we're re that we're repaying and thinking it was a little high, but it is what it is. That's what we've agreed to do. But it was a lot of money. And I think I even said something about that's a lot of money. >> You may. >> But [clears throat] so this is not a surprise to me. What is a surprise is the $20 million. And so I would love a way that in the future I mean this report was supposed to come to us like six months ago. So really we've been in the final bits there's we knew six months ago we weren't spending 20 more million dollars on this. >> Oh the lower peninsula report. the low. I'm sorry. I'm back to MCD for you. >> Yep. >> So, that's what this council needs to know. >> Before now, if I had not asked for this report, we wouldn't know that we had this $20 million. And it's not because you didn't necessarily want to tell us. It's just part of how you've always done things. And that's that's the kind of stuff that we need to know. >> How does that happen? >> But but that's that's what I'm saying. I'm trying to create a process of at the end of projects they bring stuff to us to so we learn about this so that we can come up with a better way that at the at when you're starting to get to the end if you have a large amount of money like that let us know about it and let's so we can you know put it on the agenda so we can talk about where or you just send us an email saying okay we've got $20 million left we're expecting to be able to use this with the Southard um storm relief project it gives us a little bit more of an idea of how this money is But more importantly, I I have to say this because it hurts my heart when members of the public come up and say that we can just take this money and divide it up and give it to people who've lost everything. That's not okay. It's just simply not okay. people who've lived I've been inside people's homes who've lived in their homes for 30 years who raised their children in their homes and then lost everything. They've been in the neighborhood in the community for years and they've watched this happen over time. They've seen the water rise. This has not been a new phenomenon for them. But this time it got them. Climate change has something to do with it. Sea level rise has something to do with it. We are working from 2016 numbers. A lot has happened in nine years. We have so much going on. We need to fix this. I am still committed to fixing this. But I want everyone who comes up who argues about this project to really think, is it okay for me to ask someone to leave their home? Would I leave my home? [snorts] It hurts my heart. And today I almost cried because we have to be considerate of our neighbors when they come here to speak about this. I I just had to say that today. It It just It hurts me. Thank you. >> Okay. So, can I Councilman Carlson, are you going to give me a a motion to continue? >> Yeah. Yeah. I I just want to say I think um I I would I would ask I I feel strongly that we need to separate the water project and stormwater project. These are not long RFPs anyway. they're uh their RFQS or they're pulled from um uh uh existing agreements with organizations. Um I don't want to have that whole argument now, but what I'd recommend is that we make a motion to have staff come back in two weeks or in a month to tell us um to ideally to have them separate the water projects. Um, but if we if we say today up or down, we know the answer they're going to give us, I'm definitely going to vote no because I'm not voting for anything that's connected to a project that's a boondoggle that's not going to work. Um, and when I say it's not going to work, yes, it'll work with 4 in or 5 in over a certain amount of time. But, um, contrary to what the mayor said this morning, there are solutions to prevent higher levels of flooding um, in our community and to and to protect against rainfall. There are lots of cities around the world that have uh more sophisticated technology and infrastructure than what we're proposing and we can come up with solutions. The problem is just like council member Vieira is passionate about his district. I've been to all the areas mostly with staff in South Tampa where people flooded and first of all nobody's even said anything about storm surge which is was devastating for my district. But second, there were pockets of um of uh flood, freshwater flooding in areas. There were areas that had a pump and a working generator and the gen it turns out the pump just wasn't strong enough. The design of it was not right or another area where the culverts were broken and flooded already before the storm hit. Um there's another one that had problems probably from the expressway uh dumping water into the neighborhood. Those are are all areas that could be addressed, but the answer in every case from staff is we don't have the money. Well, that obviously is leading everybody in the public to think that the mayor's going to propose a stormwater increase. So, what we've got to do is is figure out how much money do we have left over the next year and a half anyway without raising taxes and figure out what's the best project, what's the highest and best use of that money. Should we should we spend a hundred million plus on a project that is only going to work in a for 5 in in a 4-h hour time period or should we help protect the other hundreds or thousands of people that got flooded that had never gotten flooded before because the basic infrastructure around them was broken and and they were promised in all these taxes that it would be fixed and maintained and it never was. So now we're playing catch-up. So what I would recommend is that we make a motion to come back in two weeks or a month with the water project to ask them to to try to figure out how to separate it. But second, we need to move. We in in February at the workshop, what we need to talk about is not just the South Tower project, but we need to talk about what is all the money that we have left between now and May 1st, 2027 and what pro what are the what are the possible alternative projects that we could spend that money on without raising taxes and then and without ideally taking on more debt and and what we could what could we spend that money on? uh the public deserves to have a discussion about what the highest priority is without by the by the staff of the administration making that decision. We're not trusting the public to understand. The staff and the administration can make their case in front of the public. Public can let us know and we can choose which one. But I think we need a wholesome discussion not just on the merits of whether the South Tower project is good or bad, but what are the alternatives? We have limited money and we need to help thousands of people. What's the what's the how can we best apply the limited money to help the most people? So we have availability on December 4th to bring an item back. Is there >> let's do somebody want to give me a motion for December 4th? >> We got some what what day? >> December 4th. >> December we got in December we got the 4th, the 11th and the 18th. Remember you got the 6th and the 20th. >> Can I try one? December >> November get this started. But but I I'm willing to weigh the rules to bring >> Okay. If that's if that's what you wish, we can do that as well. So you just >> I would make a motion to bring back 66 and 67 on what whatever date you say. Um, but to ask staff to try to >> separate the water project from the South Howard project >> November 20th. >> Well, okay. So, we November 20th we >> Oh, whoops. >> Yeah, I know. Exactly. We're not supposed to do that. >> Yeah. >> So, I I would still suggest December December 4th is is like tomorrow. But my my problem with that is getting this project started during the dry season is important. >> But again, that's only that's only a month away. Remember, it's we're at the end of October. It's not very far away. >> So, I didn't get a second. >> Okay. So, again, restate restate your motion please. >> I I would like to I would like to move to continue 67 66 and 67 to December 4th. fourth with the caveat or or with a request that staff uh try their best to move it it to be a separate water project not connected to um the south >> we have a motion mobility project >> and mobility yeah okay >> we have a mo we have a motion from councilman Carlson a second from councilman scalco all those in favor say I >> discussion if I may >> oh discussion I'm sorry councilman >> I'd like some clarity what it means separate does it mean separate moneywise or separate doing it one time doing the laying the pipes and then closing the land and doing opening it again. That I would be again. >> Yeah. No, this is totally different streets and projects. Yeah. >> This is for the water management from 100 years ago. >> Okay. That's what I want to know. >> I agree. >> You agree with that? >> Okay. So, we have a motion from Councilman Carlson, a second from Councilman Masko. Discussion from Councilman Vera. >> Yes, sir. Quick two questions. So if I if I vote for this it would be I'll have to ask staff a question but number so first off if we continue it sir to December 4th I think the date is will that how if at all will that burden this project going forward >> so if it's December 4th I think we would have about two months uh in between the planned completion of this and the planned start of the main segment of work on Howard. However, uh if we are if we're repackaging all of these segments alto together, I I don't know what the schedule implications might be. Uh we will try to to tease those out as best we can by December 4th if that's >> I have the highest degree of respect for Kemans and their ability because I think they're great partners. I'm sure they can get this done. >> My my my thought though is if you're if you're asking me to come with a completely different project, >> um >> no, no, no. just repackage this so that it's clear that this is a water and mobility project. >> Okay. All right. I'm I may need to have some discussions between your individual exactly how to meet that intent. >> And as chair over mobility and technically storm water, I'm happy to work with you on that. >> Thank you. >> And and if I may, Mr. Chairman, thank you. So, um may I Yes. Thank you, sir. So, with regards to that, again, if we do get to vote on this in December 4th and we pass this on December 4th, um would that five week or so delay again, how would that affect the project, if at all? Do we have a buffer there? >> Two months, he said. >> Yeah, I I think we would still have about a two-month buffer. Of course. Good. That's a that's a contingency for the schedule. >> Okay. So, >> and I cleared this to John Bennett, too, by the way. He said it was good. >> Yes, sir. Okay, good. So again, I want to very clear carefully explain my vote, which is I am supporting this because back when it was in in February, I wasn't inclined to support that because that would delay the project from the information I'm being told. This will not delay the project and I do think that we need more time in order to get clarification on leftover funds. That is information that we need. I still 110% support this project and intend to see it through with my own vote and my own support. But again, I want to explain my vote because this is not to delay the project. This is to seek more information that I think we need as stewards of the public's trust. I'm good with that. >> We have a motion from Councilman Carlson, a second from Council Medal. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. >> I'd like to make a second motion in um and that is to >> Hold on. Did you can I recognize him or you want to go first? >> Um is it about the is it about the um bond resolutions? M mine is um I'll just tell you the the same thing I said a minute ago, which is that there are to look at the money that we will have over the next 18 months without raising taxes or taking on debt and and and have staff present to us the alternatives uh of what we could spend that money on uh so that we can and get feedback from the public and make a decision about what we think the priority is. But >> I think that's new I think that and that is new business. Yeah, I think they're new business, but I I don't think I could support that because I Yes, we're only here till May, but that doesn't matter. Like, we need to plan. We need to keep going. >> Let's let's let's put put a pen in this. Let's hold this for new business. >> But the public the public's here. >> I I I get it. But I think this is new business. And I think for parliamentary procedure, I think that's the way to go. Okay. >> And uh so we we've we've we have continued this item. The staff has got their direction to come back by December 4th with the >> Did we vote? >> Yeah. Yes, we did. >> I have one more question >> and councilwoman her. Where are we in the design timeline for the south powered project because it was supposed to be to us in April of 25 uh mobility storm water and we are currently in the 30% design phase and anticipating the deliverables of 30% design I would say by the end of the uh calendar year late December and by that time I I do want to emphasize we do have a 30% level engineers opinion of a probable construction cost at that time we can fully evaluate the uh the the potential cost and benefit all together at that point. >> Excellent. >> So then um Okay. Well then I'll work with you all to get a motion together to have you present that to us and to have I do believe there's public meetings required at the 30 60 and 90%. >> That's correct. At each milestone we do have the public meeting. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate the report. Okay. Very good. We are going to move on to item 70. What is it? >> Thank you, sir. Thank you. >> Help me out, Mr. Shelby. >> Oh, no. Now we're we're doing uh the charter review because >> Oh, yeah. 75. >> 75. >> Ma'am, Mr. Chair, just just for a notice. Um at 4:30, I need to step outside for a 20-minut phone call. After that, I'm good. Before that, I'm good. But just FYI. >> Okay. Very good. Um thank you. This will be item number 75, charter review. Uh, Mr. Shelby, would you like to kick us off please? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Martin Shelby, city council attorney. Um, Mr. Chairman, you uh distributed to council members uh late last week a um a memo regarding uh today's uh discussion of council. You listed three different topics. I just distributed copies of that, hard copies of that to councils. They have that in front of them. And I also want to uh um um turn it over to you um because um we have in the um audience today um Mr. Robert Hendrickson who was uh somebody who uh uh has been highly recommended as a uh facilitator or potential facilitator for uh the charter review commission. One of the most important things you take a look at today are the topics for today's discussion. And again, Mr. Chairman, you have proposed a special call workshop because if you look at the timeline, which I'm going to ask council to take a look at and to adopt it either today or in the future, um you are on a very tight timeline. And one of the um uh challenges for us with having this have ballot questions on the March 2nd, 2027 um uh vote for the public working backwards. We have to move very quickly in order to get things done. And what that does is that obiates the ability for us to have a long RFP or RFQ process. Um we are going to be looking for professionals and Mr. Hendrickson uh is uh highly regarded. I'd like to uh I don't know whether you want to increase to introduce him. Uh he um is available here to uh introduce himself to council. But if you take a look at the timeline um you will see that what we need is the opportunity if you wish to bring on staff prior to making appointments that has to be done by December 4th. And for you, and I know you've been getting a lot of questions um from the public, and I've been getting questions from you as to when you make your appointments tentatively, the date would be December 4th. But that means getting in the applications from your uh applicants in advance. So that as we do with every applicant, um there is a background check and also there's some open-ended questions about for instance is a financial disclosure to be required. So I I just turned it over to you, Mr. Chairman, and uh I thank you for um um bringing this forth. >> Right. Um as as Mr. Shelby u stated, and I know you all had received this via email and he's now given hard copies in an effort to kind of facilitate this process and not far starting from scratch, we kind of gathered information from various sources including consultations with uh Miss Hager and Mr. Shelby and others to kind of again like he just stated working backwards from the point that we have to get this information to the supervisor of elections. None of this is written in stone and I know a couple of you all have had your own personal experiences with the charter review board. So I'm sure that you'll be able to um express your opinions on this as well. Um the most important thing I think is one we have to get started and the timeline is is tight. Part of that I believe is a spec would be to have a schedule a special call workshop before November 6th so that we can um institutionalize [clears throat] the procedures on how we're going to run this uh charter review commission including how we're going to make these appointments. Because for those of you that were on the charter view, remember this is you passed you passed the creation of this procedure uh that's going to occur and the body of that and but you did you did not tell us how we're going to make those appointments. So we have to uh we have to make that determination. I mean we've made some assumptions that each council person would make one appointment that doesn't quite fill the our obligation because we still have a couple you know we still have uh the uh alternates and others. So that I think that should be done at a special call workshop. Um >> and Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shelby, I'm sorry to interrupt again. Martin Shelby, city council attorney, please also be mindful um that um at that special call workshop, I would suggest strongly that both the uh administration, the mayor represented by the administration and the legal department be part of that as well. um uh because the mayor does have two appointments and does select one of the alternates. So, right, this timeline um will also then um when it's adopted would also uh apply to um uh having input from the mayor as well. >> Yes. What he said. Yeah, I I assume because when we were looking to amend the charter four or five years ago, the mayor sent EJ Salenz and the chamber and other people in here to say that the the charter was uh sacred document should not be amended. I assume the mayor doesn't have any changes to it. Thank >> so um >> right so so could uh could somebody look at the calendar and let's throw out some dates to propose special call workshop. >> I have to go get my phone. >> You propose November 4th. November 4th is what was proposed. >> That works for me, too. >> That works for me, too, obviously. >> But we should we should set a limit. If we start at 9, we should set a limit of noon or something. >> And I don't know, it'll be >> that's election day. >> Yes, sir. >> So, there's a special election Tuesday, correct? >> Yes. >> When When is that individual who I have that information? >> When do they get sworn in? They the supervisor of elections will not certify that election until the 7th. So their first meeting with us will be they'll be sworn in and they will be expected to be of madas by state law because they'll be required to vote on November 13th. >> Okay. So that's the day. Okay. So we will not have a a person uh by this discussion. >> Well by by the one on November 6th. >> No, November 4th. >> November the 4th. And [snorts] when are they sworn when when >> they'll be sworn in? On the 7th. So, we're okay. >> And we can make it a point to ask to give them the chance to add things afterwards because it's a flexible. >> And by the way, by the way, the this special call workshop is a public meeting. They're welcome to attend. >> Yes. >> November 4th. >> I mean, I guess I can move some things around. >> I suspect by this point everything I'm going to have to move stuff too, but I suspect that's >> I mean, it's not a horrible day, >> right? >> Okay. So, we have a motion to call a special call workshop. What between 900 and noon? Is you think it's sufficient? >> Yeah. I I move for a special call workshop to discuss the charter review commission on November 4th from 9 to noon here. >> Is council chambers available on November 4th? >> I mean, >> it is perfect. See, sometimes the plan comes together. >> Okay. Wait, Council, >> I don't know about Council. Uh, >> so we have a motion from Council Carlson, second from Councilman Maskcalo. Are you ready for a vote? Can we do the sister? >> Yeah, we could do that. >> No, but we need >> sister is good. >> Yeah, I mean I guess yeah, we could teleise. >> Well, you don't have to televis. It's not something audio recording. Are you good on November 4th from 9 to 12? >> I don't think I am. I think they're talking about spring. >> Oh, [laughter] >> let me see here. Or you can make him the afternoon. Sister cities. >> So I >> I suspect any day we're going to pick >> I have a mediation at 12:30. Um and then what is this in? >> Okay then. Yeah, then so long as we're out. >> Let's do sister cities. >> Okay. So we have a motion from Council Carlson, a second from Manoscalo. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. The eyes have it. >> Sister Cities. >> Sister Cities Room. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, so now let me pause for a moment and I would like to bring up Robert Hendrickson to the deis. Um, Robert is a facilitator. If you've got his bio in front of you, he's uh I actually witnessed him facilitate a meeting and those of you that have heard me complain about past facilitators that we've had. Um, Robert did a phenomenal job. I mean, a 10 out of 10 in the meeting that I saw, he acted as a facilitator. He did not get involved in subject matter. He just helped facilitate the meeting and moving points along to to reach conclusions. Um he exactly what a facilitator should do. He has come highly recommended and Robert would you like to say any words or introduce yourself? >> Sure. Good afternoon. Nice to meet everyone. >> I didn't draw the public records so you have to say state your name. >> Oh I'm sorry. Rob Hendrickson. And um as you mentioned uh chair I we met through a a session I ran for the sports authority. I work for the county and I'm an internal consultant and I have been for my tennis years with the county um by virtue of having done consulting for years before. So I get assigned to a lot of uh important fun projects related uh to my skill set and and run large programs, strategic programs for the county. And this came up as an opportunity. So I wanted to get a chance to meet everyone and um answer your questions, maybe tell you more about my my approach, uh my background, whatever you really need. But I'll leave it at that and leave. So, to kind of brighten up the discussion, what we're looking at doing is bringing them on as a 1099. >> Um, we would I would be asking um Rob for a proposal, which we I'm waiting what we waiting for to, you know, see so it's, you know, got to get the proposal, see if it's, you know, a fair deal for everybody concerned. And at least that's where we are right