Council returns this week for their last regular meeting in June and before their scheduled 2 week vacation to start July. With an 102 item agenda — 91 requiring a vote — they will be approving over $28 million in spending and appropriations. The items range from accepting $3,400 worth of donated gym equipment for Tampa Fire Rescue to $10 million for the UNITE: Ashley Drive project.

Consent Agenda

Reminder, items under the consent portion of the agenda are not discussed and are voted on in department blocks unless a council member requests the item be pulled.

Fire Station Wind Retrofit

Items 19-22 are asking council to approve extensions to 5 grants awarded to the city in 2023 by the state division of emergency management for hazard mitigation. All are for wind retrofitting and were supposed to be completed by August 2025. The state has agreed to extend that a year. Each grant is roughly $500,000 with no explanation for the delay.

Ethics Commission Report

Item 57 – It is a little odd that the Ethics Commission is submitting a report in June of 2025 for the 2024 Annual Report that covers the period of June 2023 – June 2024. The report is light on details such as what were the “Three legal opinions provided during the 2023-2024 reporting period”? I mean, is this outdated?

On April 6, 2022, Mayor Jane Castor formally requested that the Ethics Commission conduct a comprehensive review of the City of Tampa lobbyist disclosures and registrations, ethics enforcement process, and conflict of interest disclosure requirement for all elected city officials. This project was completed by the Ethics Commission in October, 2022. The Legal Department is currently working to update the Ethics Code with the recommended language for final approval and presentation to Tampa City Council.

In 2022. Has council already had this presentation and approved it? I can’t recall a single discussion about lobbying except how the city uses lobbyists in Tallahassee. But if so, why is this Annual report referencing it as if it just happened? The included Ethics Commission Rules and Regulations were last updated 11/28/23. Very odd. Related, the city’s ethics officer retired this month.

Affordable Infill Housing

Item 73 – In November of 2021 the city entered into an agreement with Habitat For Humanity to build a single family home on property owned by the city. Additionally the city was providing a $75,000 interest free loan for construction costs. The terms of the agreement included capping the income at 50% of Area Median Income (AMI) for 10 years. Four years later, the admin is asking council to approve an amendment to the agreement to increase the AMI to 80%. Apparently it took them 4 years to figure out that they couldn’t build a single family home that someone making 50% of AMI could afford. The bigger concern is that it’s only 10 years. How many other contracts from this period were for such a short time frame? Most “affordable” housing projects are at a minimum of 30 years. Rental property 50 to 99 years. And if the city had followed through on the Community Land Trust, these types of projects would have been kept “affordable” in perpetuity.

Public Hearings

Dates for the public hearings for the annual Stormwater Services Assessment fees are being set for August 7, 2025 at 10:30 am. I would not be surprised if the mayor recommends an increase, so watch this space.

JC Newman Cigar Company & Special Use Alcoholic Beverage Sales

I’ve written about this project numerous times: when it first appeared at the CRA, when it appeared on the evening agenda and when the seemingly related rules change appeared on the last CRA agenda.

In short:

• March 13 – The CRA Board approved a $5 million grant without a presentation or discussion. The application noted less than 50% of revenue could be derived from alcohol sales. The project is also receiving $3 million in county, state and federal aid for historic preservation.
• May 22 – Four special use alcohol sales applications were presented, 3 with Sanchez Y Haya Real Estate Company (LLC) as the applicant. All 4 passed first reading unanimously with Clendenin absent at vote.
• June 12 – CRA Board approves a rule change that removes the stipulation grant applications can’t have special use alcohol permits or be limited to less than 50% of sales derived from alcohol.
• June 26 – council will approve on 2nd reading the SU applications.

I will reiterate that approval of the special use applications are completely separate from grant funding, but it’s impossible to not note the lack of transparency and coincidence of the related rule changes surrounding this project.

Staff Reports & Unfinished Business

UNITE: Ashley Drive

Item 94 – This item originally appeared on the consent agenda in February with council continuing it for additional information. What started as a $11 million project — half funded with a federal grant — ballooned into a $20+ million project to be funded by a combination of CRA funds, general revenue funds and potentially bonding. Some on council have indicated they would only support the project if it was fully funded with downtown CRA funds and the grant. However at the June CRA meeting only the original $8 million requested was approved. The vote will be to use $5.3 million within the Transportation Grants Capital Projects Fund (the federal grant) and $4.7 million within the CIT Series 2016 Bonds Capital Projects Fund (projected interest earnings, what ever that means) and $8 million in CRA funding. The source of the remaining $3.9 million “to be determined at a future date.” As I have stated previously, I don’t necessarily have an issue with the project, what I have an issue with is how often council is asked to approve a project at one price, only to see it double. And it seems to happen more often than not when grant funds are associated. What starts out as a project half funded by a grant turns into a project where the grant is less than 25% of the project. See also West Riverwalk.

Fire Station 24

For the last 4 years the building of fire stations, and station 24 in particular, has been a pain point between council and the mayor. This site has probably spilled more pixels on the Tampa Fire Rescue budget than any other subject. I tried to consolidate the latest discussion in a wrap up after the June 5 meeting when frustrations boiled over. I find it difficult to believe anything in the timeline has changed in 3 weeks, but perhaps the new project manager will have news. Additionally Fire Chief Tripp will be presenting a “Public Safety Master Plan” for TFR, which one can expect to be a preview of what will be in the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) budget presented by the mayor next month.

Mid-Year Budget Review

The Charter required mid-year budget review was originally scheduled for May 15th and continued until June 26th. The fiscal year starts October 1st of the preceding year, meaning April was the mid point of FY25. The mayor will be presenting her proposal for the FY26 budget at the July 17th meeting. I also expect the $25.8 million in unspent funds from FY24 will come up. Council voted in April on how they wanted to use it, but there haven’t been any formal budget moves to appropriate them. This included an additional $1.8 million for the Homeowners Disaster Assistance Program and $3 million for stormwater to address maintenance prior to hurricane season.

Council will be off the next two weeks for their regularly scheduled summer vacation returning on July 17th for a regular meeting which will include the aforementioned budget presentation. I hope to have a preview and explainer of the budget process completed by then.