Council hears plan for $783 million city share of Hillsborough County’s CIT renewal, debate on balancing parks, public safety and debt mitigation

At a council workshop, finance staff presented the city’s planning view of the Hillsborough County Community Investment Tax (CIT) renewal. The slides were taken, staff said, from county material and showed countywide projected CIT proceeds of about $3.76 billion over 15 years and an estimated City of Tampa portion of roughly $783 million (about 22 percent of the county total).

Dennis O'Hara, the city chief financial officer, reminded council that the CIT proceeds will not arrive at once. He said the city expects roughly $175 million through fiscal year 2030 under current projections and that the renewal — if enacted as shown on the county’s website — would begin collections in December 2026.

Why it matters: CIT proceeds are a significant near‑term revenue source that the city could use for capital projects, to pay down or mitigate general‑fund debt service, or to fund one‑time investments such as parks and public facilities. Council members pressed staff about flexibility and trade‑offs between spending for capital projects versus debt mitigation.

How staff laid it out: the city’s high‑level allocation framework showed broad categories (transportation and public works; public safety vehicles; public safety facilities; parks and conservation; public facilities; Raymond James Stadium and Amalie Arena assistance). The presentation flagged roughly $61 million for public safety vehicles and equipment in the near 4‑year window, about $17 million for parks projects in that initial period, and $35 million set aside for stadium and arena in the five‑year horizon shown.

Staff warned council that using CIT to securitize long‑term debt is more complicated in a 15‑year renewal than with the prior 30‑year CIT. O'Hara said the shorter renewal period makes securitization less likely in most circumstances and that the county historically used a significant share for debt service. He also noted that county allocation formulas incorporate population formulas set by state statute.

Questions and public remarks: Council members sought detail on whether parks maintenance or basic park upgrades could be funded from CIT money and whether the city had received a definitive estimate from the tax collector on the city's annual yield. John Bennett, the mayor’s chief of staff, said city administration and the CFO had met the county administration and asked the county to analyze county assets inside city boundaries and consider an MOU to direct more work like paving to avenues within city limits.

Council members also raised equity and allocation concerns. Councilman Maniscalco pressed for use of CIT to avoid new long‑term bonding where feasible (particularly citing park maintenance), while other members stressed public safety and facility needs. Councilman Miranda highlighted a perception that the city receives a smaller share than he expected and asked staff to clarify allocation mechanics; O'Hara said the split is a function of the county’s state‑statute formula and of negotiations at the county level.

Next steps: staff said they will continue discussions with the county (including the MOU analysis) and will present more detailed options to council for trade‑offs between capital PAYGO, facility investments and debt‑mitigation uses of the funding.