First, I appreciated the recognition of Mary Bryan, retiring from working for the City of Tampa for 63 years. I’ve only had a couple of conversations and email exchanges with her but every kind word you’ve heard isn’t enough. She’s what makes Tampa unique.

The vote on The Jackson House didn’t get much discussion—it wasn’t pulled from the consent agenda—but the chair of the foundation did speak during public comment. Part update on where the project stands; part acknowledging the foundation didn’t object to the latest terms of the proposal. They are moving forward and in final steps of selecting a firm to handle the dismantling/rebuilding. At her last update, she made clear they were prepared to move forward with or without the easement and were uncomfortable with the terms proposed. This week she praised the mayor and staff for negotiating back to a prior arrangement. Details weren’t provided. Council member Carlson did make a comment (which technically violated council rules) and placed the blame back on the foundation. He claims the surrounding property owners had provided a one or two year option for an easement “a few years back” and the foundation didn’t do anything. A few years back, as in July of 2022 he brought this to the CRA agenda. A deal was supposed to be on the table in 2023. A few years before all of that was Covid. Either way, this agreement should allow the foundation to rebuild the structure in the manner they wanted so as to retain the historic designation.

For item 32, a request to approve $2.5 million more for credit card processing fees (beyond what was budgeted) was pulled from the consent agenda asking, “What happened? Didn’t we change this policy?“ There was a memo pulled from CFO Dennis Rogero for the February 2024 meeting breaking down the options. There’s video and minutes of council voting unanimously to use staff’s recommendation and charge a 2% transaction fee. Staff’s response? Can’t explain. The staff member addressing the issue was promoted to their position right before going on vacation last week and has no background on the item. The CFO is out this week. And while these fees are strictly parking and water — so not necessarily funds that could be spent on anything — it’s still an operational cost that should be passed onto the consumer if these are “enterprise funds”. What is also unknown is the amount of credit card fees other departments may be incurring. Construction services, solid waste and parks and recreation all do consumer level transactions. The parks and recreation budget is abysmal as it is. Or we agree it’s a cost we’ll eat. But the discussion and vote 18 months ago was to pass the cost along so it’s not a good look to hear from the finance department during budget season “you caught us flat footed.” Council had no option but to approve the item and request finance department follow up.

Speaking of parking, there was an update provided by staff regarding Kiley Garden. I had never actually heard the breakdown of who “owns” what, but the two story underground garage shares ownership. The “beer can” building to the south owns the lower floor, the city parking division owns the first floor and leases it back to the building while the parks and recreation department “own” the garden. Latest estimates for repair were $1.1 million for the garage and $11 million to rebuild the garden . That would be completely removing it, sealing it, and rebuilding the garden to its original design. I get a little lost why the parks dept is on the hook for the repairs to the roof of an underground garage. But what to do about the space is a debate that’s been kicked down the road for over a decade. The original blueprints exist. Maybe it’s time to consider rebuilding it somewhere else along the river and activate that space. Last I heard, the city can’t rent that space out for festivals due to liability concerns and structural integrity of the garage. My first thought was River Tower Park as a relocation spot. Find an equally acclaimed landscape architect to re-imagine the design in a new space. Or find the money in the downtown CRA budget and repair it in place.

While not on the agenda, the Racial Reconciliation Committee has been discussed during public comment, reported as being in limbo and touched on during new business. It seems council’s response is to leave this in the hands of the facilitators for now. More limbo.

Thinking about the budget side of things and some opinions I’ve shared recently, I was reminded of the open letter the committee wrote in May.

It is not a stretch for any observer of the activity of both the Executive and Legislative branches of our city government to notice quickly that while they are cordial with one another, they are not collaborative nor are they proactively innovative in moving certain issues progressively forward. Their activity is more like Teenage Siblings who are enmeshed in the blame game when something goes wrong.

It could be a lot worse. Which is why I keep beating the drum about the budget process. Council keeps acting like they have to ask the mayor for permission to modify the budget. No my friend, you don’t need to do that. The proposal has been made. Now council make their adjustments. You motion to your fellow council members what you want to move around. If you get 3 votes, the mayor could veto. If you get more than 3 votes, it doesn’t matter what the mayor’s opinion is. Roll up your sleeves, dig into the numbers, find the money and make your case. That’s the process.

So it was encouraging to hear Council member Hurtak’s motion to add a third budget workshop focused strictly on stormwater was adopted. Scheduled for the evening of August 11th, after the morning workshop, this will give council and the public an opportunity to dig in deeper on the issues: special assessments and what has and hasn’t worked; to ultimately decide what level of service is expected. And how to pay for it. In one of former Mobility Director Vik Bhide’s last appearances before council he stated he was confident the department effectively spent the money on the projects council approved in the budget. They spend every dollar budgeted and “clearly it hasn’t been enough.” The down side is the first public hearings for the stormwater assessments are this week, before the session.

Before that council has their first budget workshop this Monday, August 4th. In the weekly preview I noted the agenda only had 2 items: one tangentially related to the upcoming FY26 budget but mostly about what’s been previously approved to be funded through bonding and one about non-profits and city grants. There is also now a broad “discuss the budget” for item 1. As to the non-profit discussion, In some cases, non-profits require some kind of local buy-in in order to qualify for other types of grants. This item is to identify those organizations to help inform the broader discussion about the social action and arts fund. The mayor proposed a cut in social action and arts funding allocating $100,000 per council member. That didn’t go over well at the presentation. If council wants to change that, they just need to agree where to move the funds from. In the $700 million general fund. That they are responsible for approving how it is spent. That’s the process.

Back to the legend. Mary Bryan worked across multiple departments in her 63 years. I suspect no one has experienced the evolution of the city budget more than she has. Most recently she served as legislative aide for Council member Miranda. Chair of the Finance Committee. Mary’s last words to council — “Our budget needs help.”