Aerial view of the Downtown Tampa skyline and the Hillsborough River on a clear, sunny day. The image shows high-rise office buildings, the University of Tampa, and a major highway interchange with cars crossing the river into the urban center. — Tampa, Florida Credit: Gianfranco Vivi / Shutterstock

Long time readers of Tampa Monitor will know that one of the single biggest issues raised here has been the failure of city council to grasp the budget process. To fully understand what they are approving. One of the biggest misconceptions has been what approving the 5 year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the projects in the fiscal year they are voting on. At various times over the last 8 years individual council members have expressed that the budget and CIP are aspirational. Conceptual projects. That there would be some future “real” vote to approve the project before it would proceed. “More bites at the apple.”

What they’ve learned is that the “real” future vote isn’t a vote whether or not to pursue the project but a vote to approve a contract to start. Start design. Buy the land. Often times 6–9 months after the CIP approval. And it might be a small contract, seem benign. Exploratory. So it’s approved because “there’s another bite at the apple.”

Then a year or more later a multimillion dollar contract lands on their agenda and people throws up their arms yelling “when was this approved?” “Why are we just learning about it now?” And then accusations get thrown around and the debate devolves into personal attacks. A contract amount that’s the same amount approved in a prior year’s CIP budget by the same council.

Tampa Monitor is also part of the Tampa Bay Journalism Project TBJP, a nascent Creative Loafing Tampa Bay effort supported by grants and a coalition of donors who make specific contributions via the Alternative Newsweekly Foundation.

During Thursday’s workshop it was made abundantly clear by staff that approving the CIP green lights the first steps of the project. Yes, there will be a vote on a preliminary step, and council should evaluate any vote to make sure it’s within budget and meets their expectations for the project when they approved it in the budget. Same for a final build with a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). If the contract comes back within budget and satisfies the goals of the project, it shouldn’t be controversial. Over budget or missing scope? Sure, valid issues to raise and grounds to vote against a project.

Freshly armed with that timely knowledge, Tampa City Council will be holding in what Tampa City Council Attorney Martin Shelby’s believes is a first of its kind, special call workshop Tuesday evening from 5pm to 8pm to discuss the Fiscal Year (FY) 27 budget. An open discussion to allow them as a body to give direction to their budget analyst, to start talking about priorities as well to consider how they want to use their time between when the mayor presents her budget and when it needs to be adopted.

The previous two years, Mayor Jane Castor has presented her budget proposal mid-July when council returns from their summer break. The charter only requires a budget proposal to be presented 45 days prior to the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, 2026. If a budget isn’t approved before Oct. 1, the Charter does provide for the mayor and council to operate under current funding levels for operations until an agreement is reached. Either four council members along with the mayor or five council members are required for budget adoption.

Historically council holds two workshops prior to the two public adoption hearings during the time. Last year council unanimously approved Council member Lynn Hurtak’s motion to hold a third workshop specifically to discuss stormwater. Next week’s budget workshop was also proposed by Council member Hurtak and unanimously approved.

Who ever the next mayor and council are, they will be inheriting this budget.

Have the debates about the merits of what capital improvement projects are included before approving the budget. If there are projects or funding proposals you find egregious, don’t vote for it. If enough members find issue — they don’t have to be the same concerns — there’s not 4 or 5 votes. Real debates will be had. Changes will need to be made, amendments introduced and hard votes taken. Set priorities with clarity and transparency so that residents can hold their next elected officials to the same expectations.

That’s a legacy to leave.

This post first appeared on The Tampa Monitor and is used under the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.

If you are a non-paywalled Bay area publication interested in TBJP, please email rroa@ctampa.com. Support The Tampa Monitor by making a donation or buying Michael Bishop a coffee.

Pitch in to help make the Tampa Bay Journalism Project a success.