Last night, Tuesday September 16, 2025, Tampa City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) budget and 5 year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The budget adoption passed unanimously 6-0 and the 5 year CIP was adopted 5-1, with Carlson voting no. As previously reported, there was no significant change to the FY26 budget beyond appropriating $1.3 million in unspent parking funds to fund the HART bus Route 1 pilot program. Last year the route was funded to be fare-free; this year it will not be fare-free but will maintain 15 minute frequency weekdays adding 20 minute frequency on weekends and weeknight evenings. Beyond that, the proposed funding for the Yellow Jackets field improvements were moved up to FY27 from FY28 in the 5 year CIP. The administration indicated there was funding available in FY26 to begin the design phase of that work, however there was no explanation as to where in the budget those funds were identified. Otherwise, the mayor’s proposed budget was adopted as written.

If you’ve been a long time reader of Tampa Monitor you’ll know the focus has been on process and transparency more than about where or how funds are spent. As long as each council member understands and owns their vote this writer is satisfied. It has been the broken process of how differences in priority and public will are solved between the executive and legislative branches of Tampa government that have tainted real progress made by the people committed to doing the work. Much like our aging infrastructure, our political system was designed for the 1950s, not a city of 400,000 people and a $1.9 billion budget. When council rejected the mayor’s proposed millage rate increase in 2023 without a plan for how to resolve the budget differences it wasn’t much different than if the sewer treatment plant shut down and discharged wastewater into the river. We’ve been cleaning up the mess for 2 years now.

The Good

With an agenda that looked better suited for the first budget workshop than a final adoption hearing, Council Chair Alan Clendenin showed the type of leadership from a chair that’s been missing from council when it comes to the budget. There was an obvious coordination with the administration to present the information requested by council in the form of motions while keeping the focus on the primary purpose of the hearing. He also acknowledged that this was just his second budget adoption and while he’s learned a lot in the past year, he made clear he thinks council needs to better plan before next year’s budget proposal. A tentative February timeframe for a workshop was mentioned.

This was Council member Lynn Hurtak’s third time with budget process and in that time no one else on council has demonstrated a willingness to get in the weeds with the numbers and follow through. A lot of the incremental improvements over the past two years have been spearheaded by her. The untangling of the paving budget, the transparency in where the money is being spent all came out of her office with the help of council’s new budget analyst hired last June, right before the start of budget season. Without that work, there may not be $18.5 million of city money budgeted for resurfacing this year. The highly successful Route 1 pilot was championed by her and led to an albeit modified continuation this year with full support of council. She too has been a steady voice to keep the discussion grounded and focused on the actual FY26 budget and the step in the process they were at. Last night she characterized their vote as “the period on the end of the sentence.” Equally, she acknowledged her and council’s lack of attention to the 5 year CIP and its importance in long term planning. “Next year we need to have a more robust discussion about the types of projects we want to see.”

The Bad

Not all council members seem to have gotten the memo when it comes to what their role is in the legislative process of modifying the budget. On his 9th budget adoption Council member Luis Viera admitted he doesn’t get it. While his goal to fund various non-profit organizations is admirable, when asked directly by Council Chair Clendenin “where would you propose getting the other $230,000?” Council member Viera said “I don’t know. I’ll leave that to experts. I’m just being honest, I don’t know.” How do you not know that at this point of the process any changes to the budget require identifying the funding source? It was discussed this year on several occasions the mayor proposed a budget and now it was up to council to suggest changes. The administration had given no indication over the last two months they were negotiating a budget with council. Here’s the proposal, you want to change it, shoot your shot. Which means making the political decision of deciding what doesn’t get funded or, as with the case of Council member Hurtak’s Route 1 motion, to use a specific department’s unspent funds. Yet at the 11th hour here he was saying he didn’t know how this works.

Equally bad was Council member Guido Maniscalco, on his 10th budget adoption, saying at the end of the discussion about the CIP “By saying yes to the CIP budget doesn’t mean we are approving funding and doing everything.” Actually, if it’s in the FY26 budget, then yes, you are absolutely saying yes to funding a CIP project if you vote to adopt the CIP. When a CIP project is approved for that fiscal year, that’s a green light for staff to pursue the project. Write and distribute Request for Proposals or Qualifications (RFP, RFQ), negotiate contracts, what ever steps are necessary to move it forward. Yes, contracts have to be approved. But the contract approval should be more about whether the contract is within the budget and properly addresses the goals of the project; not the time to discuss the merits of the project to begin with. That’s exactly what should be debated between the mayor’s presentation and final adoption. As to projects in future fiscal years, no, it does not appropriate funds; state law prevents the city from appropriating future funds. Often times though, as in the case of the Yellow Jackets Little League discussion this year, moving the CIP from FY28 to FY27 doesn’t only moves $1.5 million on paper from one year to the next, it triggers design work funded through a different source to begin. Based on what was presented at the final hearing, council is expecting to approve a contract for design work this year that would lead to approving $1.5 million next year to do the work. So yes, approving the current and 5 year CIP is approving funding, whether real or planned.

The Ugly

Council member Bill Carlson was elected to Tampa City Council in 2019. This is his 7th budget adoption. For the first couple of budgets, he conveniently blamed the prior administration for the city’s woes. Then he began directing blame at the current mayor and administration. All the while failing to take ownership of his own votes or attempting to lead by example. Now that he’s worn out those talking points, he decided at the last minute to point the blame at council’s budget analyst.

A last minute memo and agenda addendum to put her on the spot at for a request that should have been made months ago and for the first budget workshop agenda. Not the final budget adoption hearing. Council’s own budget analyst that has only been with the city for 14 months. Stepping in right before a budget season to a new role never before utilized by Tampa City Council; though provided for in the charter. She deftly walks the tightrope of working for council—the public—and with the CFO and Finance department weekly. This was never positioned as a forensic accountant or auditor. The city has an auditor and council members have an opportunity to request audits. The window for that may have just closed for the next year.

That Carlson used an uniformed public comment by Nathan Hagan of YIMBY Tampa as his excuse for attacking the budget analyst is the opposite of leadership. Hagan claimed in his public comment at the first budget hearing the budget analyst was hired to “solve the problem” of a mismanaged budget and that he “hasn’t gotten a clear answer” on what has changed since the millage increase failed to pass bringing into question the contributions of council’s budget analyst. Mr. Hagan and YIMBY Tampa did not have public comment for the $25.8 million in unspent FY24 funds council appropriated earlier this year. Funds council’s budget analyst was instrumental in helping Council member Hurtak identify and shepherd to a separate vote. Prior to FY25, those funds were rolled over and discreetly added to the budget by the admin.

Carlson has not declared his candidacy for mayor, but most indications are he’s going to run. If he’s willing to throw his own staff member under the bus for political points and avoiding doing the job he currently has, what else is he willing to do?