First, congratulations and welcome to Tampa City Council’s newest member, Naya Young. Council Member Young was sworn in Friday after a decisive win in last week’s special call run-off election. She and the rest of council will be sitting for a single regular meeting Thursday morning with a 67 item agenda. Items they will be voting on range from accepting a $10,000 CERT grant for Tampa Fire Rescue to a $67,401,584 omnibus resolution (more on that later).

Before getting into the omnibus resolution (two actually) , an item on the consent portion of the agenda worth highlighting is Item 18. A request for the city to contribute $350,000 for the latest iteration of the cross bay ferry. This shouldn’t be controversial either in the dollar amount or the goal. The lack of transportation options between Tampa and St. Petersburg won’t be solved by this small scale project, but hopefully it will be successful and part of a long term solution.

Trees

Another topic that’s back on the agenda (three items: 25, 63, and 66) is trees. Specifically the tree trust fund; its management and implementation. The administration is arguing well intended separation of funds by region is burdensome to manage and limits how and where the city can plant trees. Advocates for trees (we all should be advocates for trees but there are folks who have worked for decades to grow and protect Tampa’s tree canopy) are questioning how much has been collected and how/where spent. One could probably carve out a lane running on the platform that the city will never plant another Crepe Myrtle or palm and call it planting a tree. Where the city’s tree canopy stands was the purpose of item 66, however another request to continue to report has been submitted by staff. An included PowerPoint from a study on the effects of the hurricanes on the canopy suggests the city’s canopy went from 31.4% prior to the hurricanes to 29.9% after. The city’s canopy peaked at 34.6% in the 90s.

Land Use

There are 9 second readings for land use items along with 2 second hearings for brownfield designations on Thursdays agenda. Additionally, Item 54 is a motion to reconsider a prior decision related to a small piece of land (2,923 square feet) in Beach Park. It’s unimproved land that was once intended to be the extension of a road that’s turned into a bit of a pocket park for some in the neighborhood. Except it’s not city property. There are easements that exist and would still exist if the vacation were to be approved. Council’s previous decision was to not approve the vacation but are being asked to revisit the decision on the grounds one of the adjacent property owners was unavailable to speak at the last hearing. It’s an interesting discussion on the differences between city land and easements.

Code Enforcement

Item 55 is a first reading to make comprehensive changes to the city’s code of ordinances related to code enforcement. (Very meta.) This originally appeared on the agenda in August. Bobby Creighton did a better job than I could outlining the good and bad in the recommendations . Ideally the administration took the community and council’s feedback and are returning with an improved revision. The rub will be in where they landed on ordinance versus executive order.

FY25 Omnibus

Which gets us to the $67 million dollar question. In the agenda description for item 19 it states $9,606,599 as the impact. Curiously, there isn’t an attached summary sheet. However, the attached resolution for the item is for $67,401,584. The significant portion of that being a $50 million decrease from the Community Land Trust debt proceeds. What Community Land Trust you ask? Good question. The CLT was an idea spearheaded by former Council Member Orlando Gudes and approved in the FY24 budget. Former Deputy Admin of Development and Economic Opportunity Alis Drumgo was shepherding the CLT up to the point he left the city last summer. It hasn’t been mentioned since so draw your own conclusions. That it appears the mayor is formally pulling the plug isn’t a surprise. This wasn’t one sided either; Council Member Clendenin was a vocal critic of the CLT after being elected. If you’re unfamiliar with the concept of Community Land Trusts, this League of Cities document does a good job of explaining them and their benefits.

Whether or not these two items (item 26) were inadvertently submitted and one not pulled or they are somehow tied together is unclear. It will be interesting to see if 19 is removed from the agenda and whether or not council takes up discussion on either (they’re on the consent agenda which means someone will have to request it to be pulled for discussion). The remaining $8-9 million is a separate debate as it’s in essence reallocating unused funds from FY25 (reminder, FY26 started October 1) as the mayor and admin see fit. Council may have other ideas.

Next week council will sit as the CRA Board in the morning with an evening land use meeting.