9/8/26 – First budget hearing kicks off the week

While things are getting back to normal at Tampa Monitor HQ (what ever normal is these day) a few thoughts on the upcoming week:

Fiscal Year 2027 Budget

Tuesday evening at 5:01pm Tampa City Council will be gaveling in for the first of two public adoption hearings for the budget. Emphasis on adoption. Call me pedantic, but I think it’s important council members acknowledge the language in the resolution they will be voting for at the second hearing. A resolution which includes

the City Council of the City of Tampa does hereby accept, approve, and adopt the Annual Budget as prepared and presented to the City Council by the Mayor…That each and every item of expenditure provided for and proposed to be made by the Budget is hereby deemed and declared to be a necessary requirement for the proper and economical operation of the City of Tampa for said fiscal year.

The drum I’ve been banging the loudest over the last 3 years has been to end the disconnect between Tampa City Council adopting a budget, understanding what they approved and accepting responsibility for their votes. Not throwing a tantrum a year later when a project shows up on the agenda claiming it’s the first they’ve heard of the project or complaining about the cost — that was clearly identified in the budget. More importantly with an election next spring, everyone understanding what’s being proposed and put in motion for the next fiscal year. Like the $54 million in wastewater funds over the next 2 fiscal years for deep well injection of treated wastewater into the aquifer to combat salt water intrusion.

I don’t oppose the technology, it’s something the county has been doing for years. But I do think if it goes undiscussed during the budget adoption process, it’s the type of project that shows up on the agenda in late Februrary during peak election season becoming a poltical football. I strongly believe the merits of a project should be debated before it’s approved in the budget. Once a capital project is approved in the budget, things are put into motion to build it, not set a date to discuss it (except for fire stations, those have been window dressing for press releases).

Community Redevelopment Agency Board

I’ll be watching item 8 closely: “Clifford Shepard, CRA Attorney, to draft documents necessary to implement the CRA promises made in the Tampa Bay Rays contract and to present to the CRA Board.” There are no docs in Onbase yet, but we should at least get details on all the steps necessary to accomplish what was outlined in the Rays development and funding agreement — extend expiration of the Drew Park, West Tampa, and East Tampa districts (without county contribution) and cap the Downtown districts. There are also steps necessary to cut the “Stadium District” out of the Drew Park district and create the Community Development District (CDD).

Maybe he’ll have better luck getting a copy of the agreement council approved. I requested a copy and was provided 2 versions — the one that was added to Onbase Wednesday afternoon and a second redline copy that was generated after that one was uploaded. If I heard him correctly during the meeting (he was calling in and there was some audio issues in council chambers) he said he sent the CRA Board a memo the Wednesday evening before the meeting based on a version of the agreement he was provided but even his copy was different than what they were presenting Thursday. Granted the CRA Board weren’t a party to the agreement this time around and didn’t vote on anything, it seems bad on the surface that one their attorneys was unsure of what was being agreed to.

Evening Land Use

Without getting into individual applications I’ll note every item on the agenda (the last two won’t be heard due to mis-notices) are for a Planned Development (PD). Much has been made about the desire of council and the public to put limitations on PDs within the city. If you’re unfamiliar with a PD, it’s in essence the developer making up their own rules and asking council to approve something that doesn’t fit the existing Land Development Code (LDC) . During last Thursday’s meeting Council Chair Alan Clendenin showed his temper (again) towards Planning Commission staff complaining they weren’t responding to his motion to “research ways other local governments use to restrict Comprehensive Plan Amendments to the entitlements approved in a Planned Development rezoning” in the manner he wanted. Planning Commission staff were suggesting against changes in the Future Land Use designations and recommending that’s better done in the LDC.

His scenario was a “day care center” which I’m not exactly sure what he’s referring to, but it sounded like he was referring to the large scale developments like the Mirasol where the developer asked for the lowest FLU designation that would allow a hotel. Or the proposed project adjacent to Rodeph Shalom synagogue where they wanted to build a luxury tower (and currently have a day care center). In the Mirasol scenario, worst case became a weapon against the developer. That isn’t solved with a change to Future Land use designations, it’s fixed by allowing a hotel in a less dense category. Or by carving out allowances for smaller boutique hotels in less dense categories. Not creating a new Future Land use designation for Planned Developments.

There are proposed changes in the LDC update that would all but eliminate small scale (less than an acre) PDs but that will come with a fight against the contingent that are against allowing broader types of homes to be built in residential zonings — duplexes, triplexes and quads. Meanwhile, think tanks like the Florida Policy Project, led by former Republican State Legislator Jeff Brandes are advocating for exactly the types of changes proposed in the LDC update at the state level in their Best Practices for Starter Homes . Their recommendations go beyond the proposed local changes in that they would mandate allowing lot splits and reduced setbacks at the state level. And at the rate the state is chipping away at home-rule, seems like it’s only a matter of time before these types recommendations become law.