Council sits as the Community Redevelopment Agency Board Thursday morning with a land use agenda that evening. With discussions about the grant and application process and over $20 million in funding requests among the 20 item morning agenda, it’s hard to see how they will squeeze the meeting in without coming back after lunch. So it’s probably a good thing the controversial project to redevelop the block at Swann Ave and Magnolia Ave in Hyde Park has requested a continuance until January 15, 2026. 9 items remain on the evening agenda.

Before that, on Monday at 1pm council have a special call workshop

Discussion on the framework for a resolution to establish the goals and objectives/scope for the City of Tampa Charter Review Advisory Commission in recommending amendments to the City Charter, and guidelines for membership and the conduct of its meetings including a tentative timeline with steps necessary for Charter amendment language for voter consideration on the March 2, 2027, municipal election ballot.

This isn’t to discuss possible changes, rather the mechanics of how the commission will function. Stay tuned for a deeper dive on the Charter Review Commission.

It’s difficult to separate the discussions Thursday as they are intertwined. Items 5-7 are part of a continuing discussion about the grant and application processes. Something seems broken in the process that was implemented by a prior CRA Director and staff. The color coded tracking report with limited details has failed to keep the board abreast of what is in the pipeline when approving projects. There’s been a failure to explain the financial implications of approving a project. To the board, every project sounds good. Except now they are realizing there are fewer funds available and they need to be more judicious in their decisions. Particularly in the East Tampa district.

Broad guidelines and a first-in approach coupled with politics, personal relationships, and “they’re just a good person” vibes everything’s been approved. And now they are going to have to tell folks who have been working on their projects for months—years—sorry, we can only fund a portion of what you’re asking for. Yes, your project is identical to the one we approved earlier this year. There’s a reason why we don’t normally try to fix the plane while it’s still in the air. And there’s a reason why the public opinion of the CRA is so low.

Item16 is a grant waiver as a result of the shifting landscape grant applicants are dealing with. Anticipating rules changes and recommendations to applicants to wait lead to the delays and making rules up on the fly.

[Area Median Income – Federal HUD and State Income Limits 2025]

Among the funding requests before the board:

• Item 8 – $5.5 million from the downtown district for Curtis Hixon Park.
• Item 9 – A request of $2.5 million in the East Tampa district for 12 2 bedroom/1 bath 800 sqare foot apartments at 80% AMI. Staff is recommending $1.75. Citizen Advisory Council (CAC) voted to approve the full $2.5 million.
• Item 10 – A request of $5 million in the East Tampa district for 79 units at 40%-60% AMI. Staff and CAC both recommend the full $5 million.
• Item 11 – A request for $4 million from the downtown district for “workforce” housing: 12 units 80% AMI, 5 120%, 5 140%. Staff and CAC both recommend $4 million in funding.
• Item 12 – A request from Domain Homes for $375,000 in the West Tampa district for 5 single family homes, $75,000 per home at 140% AMI. 4 will be 1300 square feet and and the fifth 1620 square feet. A note includes the sale price will be “below city’s affordable housing price threshold of $450,000”. CAC and staff recommend approval.
• Item 15 – After an inquiry from a “private property owner”, a request of $1.4 million in the Channelside district for stormwater improvements near Twiggs and Channelside Blvd. CAC and staff recommend approval.
• Item 20 – A request for $2 million in the Drew Park district to convert 4 lots purchased in 2009 and 2010 by the CRA into a park. CAC and staff recommend approval.

Note each district has its own CAC.

Finally Item 13 is the services agreement between city and CRA. Which ties back into the discussion about who and how policies set by the CRA board are implemented. A lot to cover in 8 hours not to mention half a day.

And speaking of East Tampa funding of projects and the belt tightening, the $5 million subsidy the CRA Board approved for the boutique hotel and lounge for the Sanchez Y Haya building needs residents to join the Community Benefit Advisory Council as ad-hoc members to help “negotiate the Community Benefits Agreement between the developer and the community, which ensures this project results in tangible advantages for residents and meets community needs.” Visit tampa.gov for additional details and to apply.

Evening Agenda

Broader look at the future land use map for the part of Hyde Park the proposed project is in. Surrounded to the west and north in brown for Residential-35, the light purple to the east is Community Mixed-Use 35, south of Swann and east of Hyde Park Village is Residential-10. View the interactive map.

The project (items 2,3,5) that could have made this a long night for council is requesting a continuance until January 15, 2026. Item 2 is a proposed future land use change for the block in question, item 3 is a related alley vacation and item 5 is the associated rezoning. There was a time when council preferred the future land use hearings to be separate from the rezoning as their decisions are based on different criteria. And really, this whole project hinges on council approving the change. At its core, the question is simple: increase density and intensity on Swann Ave west of Magnolia Ave or not? The map tells the story. Currently the future development pattern north of Swann Ave east of Willow Ave is Residential-35. South of Swann Ave it is Residential-10. East of Magnolia Ave towards Bayshore the future land use designation is Community Mixed-Use 35. This proposal brings CMU35 west of Magnolia; the same designation as Hyde Park Village. There’s also a pocket of Residential-50 east of Magnolia and north of the CMU-35 along Bayshore. If council declines the future land use change, the proposed development is dead in the water. If they approve it, they might as well go ahead and extend the change all the way to Hyde Park Village along Swann Ave replicating the development pattern of Platt St to the north.

The public is divided on this one with a petition opposing garnering 695 signatures at the time of writing. There were residents of the broader Hyde Park district speak in favor when this project was presented to the Architectural Review Committee however the ARC voted to not recommend approval due to scale and massing in the historic district. Council has the discretion to not grant a continuance on the future land use application however for the rezoning applicants are afforded one continuance before requiring council’s consent. Therefore staff did not prepare a final report so it’s impossible to determine what the final project details are.

The remaining applications on the evening agenda were all found consistent by staff.