The Tampa Monitor is committed to bringing awareness to what’s going on before a vote but has been lax in covering what’s happened. Part of that is because main stream news sources tend to do that better than they cover things before a vote; part is because the Tampa Monitor is a one-person project and has to prioritize time. As Tampa City Council winds down June before their 2 week break, thought I’d take a minute to recap a few things.

Chief Bercaw resigns with more than a year left on contract

This wasn’t something that crossed the agenda, rather it was announced last Tuesday through a letter sent out by Bercaw to the mayor, city staff and the public. He announced his last day would be August 6, 2026 so that he could take position at USF teaching and coordinating the Master of Arts in Criminal Justice Administration.

He referred to it as a retirement, but technically he retired from TPD in 2024 due to a decision in 2019 to set his retirement date. Prior to any discussion of becoming Chief of Police. Mayor Jane Castor appointed him in 2023 after the debacle with the previous chief flashing her badge to get out of a traffic stop. When Bercaw’s retirement came up, he signed a 3 year contract to be chief at a salary of $241,000 a year.

The mayor announced she would not be naming a replacement, saving that as the first order of business for the next mayor and appointed Assistant Chief Brett Owens as acting chief.

Rays request delay in CRA vote

Hours after publishing yet another preview of of where things stand with the Rays and CRA, the Tampa Monitor was informed that City Council Chair Alan Clendenin had sent a memo requesting the item be continued until the July CRA meeting. After some debate Thursday morning — remove the item altogether or continue it — the CRA Board agreed to continue until August. Clendenin’s letter alluded to what’s going on in Tallahassee as if their approval of a ballot measure to amend the state constitution to reduce property taxes was tied to the non-binding vote on the MOU.

However at the very end of Thursday evening’s land use meeting Council member Bill Carlson shared while speaking to Clendenin, “I just want to say for the record, probably no one is watching, I don’t know about you but the Rays personally asked me, they said they weren’t ready for today to discuss it…The Rays asked us to do this.”

Clendenin replied, “that is correct.”

It’s all but been said the MOU was a giant charade in order for the state legislature to commit funds to Hillsborough (Community) College. [Editor’s note – all of the signs on campus still refer to the college as HCC but somewhere in Tallahassee they dropped “Community” from the name.] The state legislature approved $50 million but the governor hasn’t signed off yet. It’s conveniently been left out that originally the governor and Rays touted it would be $150 million for the college.

It remains to be seen what changes are being considered and how far any future funding agreement will stray from the MOU. It will be interesting to see if the mayor’s budget presentation on July 30 has $20 million in CIT funds for the Rays in FY27 and in the 5 year Capital Improvement Program for the 3 out years.

Land Development Code Update

The long anticipated roll out of the update to Tampa’s land development code began last week with a series of public workshops held by Administrator of Development and Economic Opportunity Abbye Feeley. THAN has a recording of the presentation if you missed it.

One of the primary changes highlighted in the presentation I attended was a proposed change to combine residential single-family (RS) 50 & 60 (lot width) into a Single Family Urban (RSU) zoning class. This class would then allow what is often referred to as “missing middle” housing — duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes. The new RSU classification would require similar massing and “look and feel” of a single family home.

Another change would be that it eliminates Planned Developments (PDs) on lot sizes less than an acre. Which I’m happy to hear as it’s something I’ve been suggesting for 3 years. I even attended one of the Zoning 101 sessions and asked that question of Ms. Feeley, could there be a lot size minimum considering there was a maximum lot size? After thinking about it a second she said yes. A reminder, PDs are spot zoning where they make up their own rules about set backs and green space.

And the piece in the middle that I think some people are forgetting is the comprehensive plan and future land use map. Density and intensity are handled there, not the LDC. The RSU zoning class would simply allow for something that’s already entitled “by right” to be built through an administrative process that adheres strictly to the code the same way a similar sized single family home can be built now. Any deviation would require a variance review which is under council control. Either through their Variance Review Board or an appeal process.

Ultimately land value is going to dictate what gets built within the constraints of the FLU map. Allowing for a modest building to built within those guard rails through administrative means is what’s being proposed. We should recognize that as progress and understand the guard rails can be adjusted through overlay districts or future modifications to a new base code.

This is not a full throated endorsement of all the changes. It’s 400 pages I haven’t reviewed, but this is the issue the administration put forward front and center with their presentations. I’m not sure their metaphor of ingredients and a layered cake did the best in tying the 3 elements together though.