The Tampa Bay Rays stadium deal is moving toward pivotal votes next week, even though some of the financing changes that helped revive the proposal may not be formally adopted for months.
On Thursday, the Tampa City Council is expected to schedule stadium-related meetings for Aug. 27. If that happens — emphasizing “if” — Hillsborough County Commission Chair Ken Hagan said he plans to move quickly to schedule a County Commission vote, likely later that same day or the following morning.
“Once that is official, then I will move forward to scheduling our meeting, likely either next Thursday afternoon or Friday morning,” Hagan told Florida Politics. “That’s not firm, but those would be the likely dates.”
The definitive stadium agreements were still being finalized Wednesday morning. Hagan said county staff and the Rays are working through “a couple of unresolved issues,” but indicated the documents could be released this week as soon as late Wednesday or Thursday.
“Everyone — the county, the city, the Rays — we all want the documents to be released as soon as possible for transparency reasons and for there to be enough time for the public and the elected officials to review and digest them,” Hagan said. “But as of right now they’re not finalized, and it would be premature to release them.”
The timetable puts Tampa on course to act first, followed closely by Hillsborough County, as officials try to bring months of negotiations over a proposed $2.3 billion ballpark and mixed-use redevelopment at Hillsborough College’s Dale Mabry campus to a vote.
But one important piece of the compromise taking shape on the city side will have to come later. The changes may not be enough to swing every vote on Council, but they could still help push the deal across the finish line.
Hagan said changes Tampa City Council Member Bill Carlson is seeking to Tampa’s Community Redevelopment Areas cannot be completed in time for next week’s stadium vote.
Carlson has pushed to extend the Drew Park and East Tampa CRAs while capping how much tax increment revenue flows into the Downtown CRA, a change he argues could free up future property-tax growth for roads, flood prevention and other needs elsewhere in Tampa.
Carlson said that the West Tampa CRA could also become part of that broader package at the request of Hillsborough County Commissioner Gwen Myers, who has asked that the West Tampa CRA be extended as the city and county negotiate the changes.
Carlson said the CRA changes are an effort to build support around the city by allowing neighborhoods beyond the stadium site to see a financial benefit from the negotiations.
A related piece of the stadium financing plan involves a home-rule tax increment financing district around the Hillsborough College redevelopment. The TIF, which had already been under consideration, is being pushed as an alternative to using roughly $100 million from the Drew Park CRA for the project. Instead, it would capture future property-tax growth generated by the redevelopment to cover that portion of Tampa’s contribution.
That is separate from the city’s additional $80 million contribution, which had previously been proposed through Community Investment Tax dollars. The TIF would not replace that piece of the deal.
“Any CRA changes or amendments will not be included in the definitive documents,” Hagan said. “Those require public hearings. They require a significant amount of time to work on those, so those would likely come within the next couple months.”
That matters because the CRA changes have been central to Carlson’s push to restructure Tampa’s financial participation in the project. It also means Council could be asked to approve the stadium agreements before Carlson’s preferred financing structure is formally in place — essentially requiring Council members to trust that the remaining pieces will follow.
Carlson told Florida Politics Wednesday that, for him, that trust will have to be backed up in writing.
“The agreement is going to have to have covenants in it to require that the CRA steps be done,” Carlson said. “I don’t think the CRA has to be a part of this agreement, but it’s just like any other agreement where you say that performance on the agreement is partly dependent on some other organization doing something.”
Carlson said he will be looking for those requirements when the definitive agreements are released.
“If it’s not in there, then I don’t vote ‘yes,’ or I ask them to delay it until they change it,” Carlson said. “The Downtown CRA is mandatory for me. If that’s not included and required, then I can’t support it.”
Carlson added that Tampa’s Community Investment Tax (CIT) dollars cannot return as the source of the separate city contribution. Carlson said his understanding is that negotiators have incorporated the pieces he seeks, but he has not yet seen the definitive language and expects to receive the documents at roughly the same time as the public.
“If it, for whatever reason, has the CIT in it for the city, then I can’t support it either,” Carlson said.
Council Chair Alan Clendenin previously told Florida Politics on Tuesday that negotiations are moving toward the Drew Park and TIF structure as city, county and Rays officials work to finish the agreements. Hagan said Hillsborough County has little preference over which financing mechanism Tampa ultimately chooses.
But even if Carlson is brought firmly into the “yes” column, opposition from other Council members remains.
Council Member Lynn Hurtak, who has consistently opposed using public money for the stadium, said that nothing she has heard about Carlson’s pitch has fundamentally changed the proposal.
“It’s the exact same plan just in different clothing,” Hurtak told Florida Politics on Wednesday.
Hurtak recently met with Rays CEO Ken Babby to discuss the project, but said she left the conversation unconvinced.
“I was still pretty adamant that I don’t want to spend taxpayer dollars on a stadium,” Hurtak said. “There are way too many unanswered questions, and I just don’t see the need to be fast about this.”
Her concerns span both pieces of Tampa’s proposed contribution.
Hurtak said she does not object to a TIF as a financing mechanism, but wants to know details about how revenue generated within the district would be divided among the city, Hillsborough County and the Rays.
She is also questioning the separate $80 million city contribution. Negotiators have sought to move that obligation away from CIT dollars, but Hurtak said that only raises questions about where the money would come from instead.
That will be one of the first things she looks for when the definitive agreements are released.
“I just don’t understand how taking it from a different hat is going to make a difference,” Hurtak said. “The bottom line is, if you’re not taking it from the CIT, then you’re taking it from money that we use to make the city run.”
Carlson disputes that take. He said the earlier CIT proposal would have effectively functioned as a grant, while the new structure would treat the city’s contribution as an advance that must ultimately be repaid with interest. He clarified that rather than providing $80 million upfront, the city would provide $20 million annually over four years. The precise source has not yet been locked down, he said, but could include available cash or short-term borrowing.
“If it comes out of short-term debt or whatever bucket it comes out of, they’re going to pay it back plus interest,” Carlson said. “Eventually the city’s going to get paid back.”
Hagan said negotiators are also still working through issues involving payments, CRA-generated revenue and the community benefits agreement.
Because Hillsborough County would shoulder the largest share of the local public investment, Hagan said the county wants the community benefits agreement to reflect that contribution, with a majority of the projects promised under the agreement benefiting the county.
Negotiators are trying to ensure “the county receives a majority of the projects that are included in the CBA, since the county has a lion’s share of the investment,” Hagan said.
Even if Tampa and Hillsborough approve the definitive agreements next week, those votes would not complete the stadium process until the additional pieces are approved.
“This is a win-win-win, where the Rays get what they want,” Carlson said. “All the improvements are owned by the city, county or state, and we, the city, get money that we need to pay for roads and flooding and parks.”