Before I get into a wrap-up for yesterday’s Council meeting I need to outline the discussions about Tampa Fire Rescue. There have been hours spent over the last 2 years discussing the needs of TFR at Tampa City Council. There is a 5 year CIP plan that includes 4 new fire stations and relocating Fleet Maintenance & Supply. My understanding is that 2 of the new fire stations (9 and 10) are contingent on the move of maintenance and supply. Thus their budget items are slotted for fiscal year’s ’26 and ’27. $43M and $38 respectively.

During the FY24 budget process, despite voting against the milage increase proposed, Tampa City Council was able to allocate $20 million in capital improvement project spending for TFR. The bulk is $12 million for fleet maintenance. In FY25, another $18M is approved, the bulk for the building of station 24.

This does not include funds that have been budgeted for rehabilitation of existing fire stations or any work not yet funded. Strictly new stations and the move.

I am confident that Council and the admin can craft a budget this coming fall that includes $18M as they did this year with $20M. So yes, if all of the dominos fall into place, in fiscal years 26 and 27 we will be looking for $77M to build 2 new fire stations. The reality is that very well could be 27-28.

Yesterday on the agenda were several items pointing back to this. One of the key items of the motion was “Administration present additional potential funding sources to help offset costs of the improvements.”

However, when it came time for these items, there was no presentation, there was no one from the admin to discuss anything. Fire Chief Tripp referred to a memo in the backup materials (which contain the many previous memos and presentations on this subject from the last 2 years). Basically nothing on their end has changed. They are not asking for any additional money, nor an expedited timeline.

The union isn’t asking for anything new either. They are tired of the games. Their position is they’ve heard all of this before. Money was budgeted, funds were allocated and then the project (particularly station 24) was shelved and we are back to talking about it for FY25. Break ground or shut up.

So with all of that, out of the blue yesterday it was proposed that the City take out a $116M loan for the 5 projects and City Council voted unanimously to move that idea forward.

Technically they voted to bring back a “reimbursement resolution”. I’ve asked for clarification on what that means. I believe it’s a required procedural step for tax purposes to publicly declare your intent to borrow money to pay for something so any funds you may have already expended (to a degree) can be paid back from the loan. I don’t believe it actually obligates any borrowing, only sets a cap on what you intend to borrow. What I don’t know is if there’s any requirement that you must now borrow. I suspect not.

So the reality may be that this is all purely symbolic political theatre and the city isn’t committing to any bonding. However, Council member Viera is selling this as a commitment to borrow $116M for these 5 projects. He specified all 5 in his motion. I failed to note that the loan comes with a $100M price tag. Those 5 projects now become a $216M dollar project.

To which case my next question is, if Tampa City Council intends to now borrow the money, how do they intend to allocate the $20M in funds already budgeted for FY24?

And if they aren’t suggesting we borrow the $20M, why in the hell are we talking about borrowing money for projects that are 2-3 years out?

I’ll also note that scheduled for yesterday was a presentation from the CFO—“Chief Financial Officer to report on the following: the bonding capacity of the City; current bonds outstanding; timeline and cost; bonding potential with enterprise funds; bonding potential with general funds; cash flow impact of new bonding; and further impact and inputs to bond ratings.”

That would all probably be great information for the public and Council to have before making another $116M commitment. However, it’s been continued until two weeks after Council votes on the reimbursement resolution. Funny how that works out. Sandwiching this around the holidays and New Year is also a bad look in my opinion.

And for the record, I fully support the investments necessary for updating and modernizing Fire Rescue. It’s why I made a big deal about all the money going into the Parking Department when the milage increase failed. I just do not understand from a procedural standpoint what anyone is accomplishing other than face time in front of cameras talking about public safety. I encourage everyone to look at this objectively and ask if this is necessary to do now and better understand the implications of any commitments to borrow for something that’s years away from being started.