The importance of the workshops isn’t to provide a dialogue between the admin and council; a council member can have as many private discussions with staff and the mayor they want. But because of Florida’s Sunshine Laws, they can’t have conversations between themselves outside of public. They aren’t sitting in smoke filled backrooms hashing out their own budget, they are in little bubbles and can only discuss priorities amongst themselves in publicly noticed meetings. And I think that’s where the disconnect starts. The majority approached this process not as a negotiation between themselves, but with the mayor. Ignoring that the mayor has already weighed priorities and made a call. Now’s it is council’s turn.

There were a few items I’d classify as news in the four hour workshop. First, a clarification on the funding of HART’s Route 1. The mayor and admin presented a slide showing increases in spending for FY26. It included $400,000 for the route. I interpreted that to mean the mayor was proposing to spend $400K more than what was spent in FY25. Not what she was proposing. That slide inexplicably shows that some of the spending approved in FY25 carries over into FY26. Not additional spending or an increase. Council member Hurtak indicted however she intends to motion to fund the route again considering the success of the pilot. Ridership has exceeded the free trolley downtown.

Another bit of news is that’s there’s a total of $41 million earmarked for paving in FY26. It includes:

• $4.5 million in unspent funds in this fiscal year.
• $5 million from the FY24 carry over.
• $9 million in FY26 budget.
• $21 million from the All for Transportation disbursement.

The disbursement funds are earmarked for specific streets. When asked by Council member Hurtak if the mobility department can spend all of those funds in FY26, the interim director hedged and said they’d try.

The last bit of news out of the day was the city hasn’t closed on the property for the Tampa Fire Rescue fleet maintenance and supply project and that the price tag is absolutely arbitrary. For the first time I can recall, there is now discussion about this being a city wide fleet maintenance facility focused on fire rescue but not limited to. That they are exploring maximizing its use. This project started out at in the FY22 budget at $6.5 million. It was included in the 2022 reimbursement resolution. By FY24 it ballooned to $33.5 million and in the FY25 5 year CIP approved at an anticipated $41.2 million (source). It was part of a $50 million reimbursement resolution approved last year. To hear it today, those numbers mean nothing and this project could either be much larger or fall through if it doesn’t meet some benchmark for a project no one can clearly define. One of the selling points of the Hanna Ave project was the centralized fleet maintenance element. Now to hear what has been called a TFR project for 4 years is a Logistics and Asset Management project that will service TFR and other departments is news. And that’s a big deal because for 3 years the Fire Chief has said that all of the other fire station projects planned hinge on this new facility being built. The entire price tag has been characterized by the administration as part of TFR budget demonstrating the mayor’s commitment to fire and public safety. A contract for consulting on this project will be before council on Thursday. I think it would benefit everyone for the admin to clarify what their intentions are and how all of this relates to TFR before the next council and mayor wind up with a boondoggle on their plate.

One question that was asked — also by Council member Hurtak — that wasn’t answered was for an explanation for the $30 million increase in salaries. Instead, Chief of Staff John Bennett presented a defense for how the admin determines salaries and compared Tampa to other municipalities in per capita spending and a couple of other data points showing Tampa in line or better with other cities in how much they spend on people. This is one of those friction points in the charter. The mayor has full authority over personnel, but the council is ultimately responsible for the budget. If they can’t set caps on personnel costs at the department level, then how can they truly be responsible for the budget? What check does the public have on a mayor from overpaying political appointees? Negotiating salaries and raises before a budget is set seems backwards.

Beyond that the rest of the day was spent airing old grievances, making suggestions for what roads to fix and council maybe, finally getting that the mayor isn’t horse trading the budget during public meetings with council. That they are only there to answer questions, not as facilitators of council’s workshops.

I was curious how council perceived the effectiveness of the workshop and reached out asking if anyone wanted to give the day a letter grade. I got one response: Council member Hurtak gave the day a C-/D+ [correction: I misquoted her grade initially as C-/B+], having hoped they would have had more time to discuss capital improvement projects. Which is a big improvement over the F she felt they earned last year in their workshops.

That’s probably a fair assessment for someone who understood the assignment and did their homework. She came prepared with specific questions for the admin. She was also the one who drove home the point to her fellow council members that the mayor’s role is done for now.

Council has one more bite at the apple next week with a workshop double header. After that, there are no more scheduled discussions of the budget until the first public hearing September 4th. One month before they vote to adopt a budget as theirs.