The Tampa City Council is considering a series of charter changes that could significantly shift the balance of power at City Hall, drawing sharp pushback from Mayor Jane Castor.
Council members laid out the proposals during their first review of recommendations from the city’s Charter Review Advisory Commission. But some of the most consequential ideas went beyond the commission’s recommendations, reviving longstanding disputes over where the Mayor’s executive authority ends and the Council’s legislative power begins.
The proposals could give the Council greater authority over the city budget, mayoral executive orders, its own staffing and potentially the City Attorney, while creating an independent Inspector General position.
The workshop was preliminary. The Council is scheduled to decide next week which amendments it wants to send to voters in the March 2027 municipal election.
Castor pushed back on the direction the City Council is considering. She said the Charter Review Advisory Commission unanimously supported preserving Tampa’s strong-Mayor form of government.
“After that extensive review and public deliberation, the committee unanimously supported preserving Tampa’s strong Mayor form of government, with executive and administrative responsibilities vested in the Mayor and legislative responsibilities vested in the City Council,” Castor said.
“I am deeply concerned that Council members are now considering changes that would disregard much of that thoughtful work and fundamentally alter the balance of responsibilities that has served Tampa for decades. We created this independent citizen-led process for a reason, and its analysis should not be cast aside for a power grab.”
Her remarks came after Council members spent much of Thursday discussing changes that would give them greater independence from the Mayor, beginning with the proposed Inspector General.
Council Chair Alan Clendenin offered his own Inspector General proposal, while Council Member Lynn Hurtak pushed for a structure that would limit involvement from both the Mayor and the Council. Hurtak also suggested Tampa look to Miami Beach’s model, including whether the city’s internal auditing operation should fall under the new office.
Council Attorney Martin Shelby said that could also require changes to how Tampa handles its auditing and ethics functions. Council Member Bill Carlson said the Ethics Commission should also operate under the independent structure.
The Council directed outside charter counsel Jim Tinkler to develop revised language, including a review of Miami Beach’s system.
Members also want a clearer answer for what happens when a mayoral executive order conflicts with Council action.
“You have a charter crisis,” Shelby said when asked how such a conflict would be resolved under the current charter.
Shelby pointed to a 2015 dispute over Tampa’s police review board. Then-Mayor Bob Buckhorn created the board through an executive order as the Council was considering its own approach, sparking a fight over whether the Mayor’s action could preempt Council legislation on the same subject.
The dispute raised a question that Shelby said remains unresolved in the charter.
“That created a major issue among the City Council,” Shelby said.
Council members asked Tinkler to draft language addressing the issue.
Carlson said any change should be limited to executive orders that conflict with the Council’s legislative authority, rather than give the Council blanket power to override the Mayor. He also proposed allowing the Council to remove the City Attorney with a supermajority vote, arguing the office can become too closely aligned with the Mayor when the two branches are at odds.
Council Member Charlie Miranda objected. Miranda argued an employee cannot effectively answer to two competing bosses and warned against dividing city government.
“No employee can have two bosses. If we’re going to have the right to fire people, who the hell wants to be city attorney? Who wants to be a department head?” Miranda said. “I don’t understand. If we want a separate government, let’s form one. Let’s form one where the Mayor sits with us. But you can’t have one party and the other party looking both ways. It’s about the public, not about me and what I want.”
The same debate over the Council’s authority surfaced in the budget section of the charter.
The current charter allows the Council to reappropriate money or use unappropriated surplus during the fiscal year only “upon the recommendation of the Mayor.” The Council can approve or reject budget changes proposed by the administration but cannot initiate one itself.
That limitation became a point of contention during this month’s budget talks. Castor’s Fiscal Year 2027 plan held back funding and deferred projects to prepare for potential revenue losses if voters approve the Amendment 3 property tax measure in November.
Council members questioned what would happen to that money if the amendment fails and learned they could not independently restore deferred spending through a midyear budget amendment. Wary that the administration would otherwise retain control over what came back, the Council spent the rest of the process directing portions to its own priorities rather than leave the money untouched.
The proposed charter change would give the Council that authority going forward. Members directed Tinkler to draft language allowing the Council to initiate midyear budget amendments. The Mayor would retain veto authority under the framework discussed Thursday, with the Council able to override a veto with the required votes.
Hurtak also wants to remove a separate mayoral check on Council staffing.
The charter allows the Council to create additional staff positions with at least five votes, but any additional costs require approval from the Mayor. Hurtak asked that the mayoral approval requirement be removed so the Council could fund additional staff for its legislative duties.
Beyond those changes to Council authority, members also moved forward with a proposal to revise Tampa’s existing mayoral term limits. The Mayor is currently limited to two consecutive four-year terms. Carlson and Clendenin said any new limits approved by voters in March would not apply to whoever wins the mayoral race in that same election. The specific change proposed was not read into the record Thursday.
Meanwhile, proposals related to Council pay will be handled outside the charter process.
Hurtak proposed an ordinance based on a framework circulated by Clendenin that would set Council salaries at 50% of the Mayor’s base salary. Members said tying compensation to a formula would avoid future Councils repeatedly voting on their own pay. Members voted to have legal staff return Nov. 5 with a proposed compensation ordinance.
The City Council will return to the charter proposals Oct. 1 for its final review before deciding what advances to the March 2027 ballot.