Tampa City Council Member Lynn Hurtak is casting a skeptical eye on the Tampa Bay Rays stadium deal, releasing a Facebook video Wednesday in which she calls the proposal a ‘rip-off for taxpayers.’

Her “MythBusters”-style critique comes just one day before she is set to vote on the agreement.

Tampa City Council is set to consider the deal Thursday, with Hillsborough County Commissioners expected to follow Friday.

Some of Hurtak’s skepticism is supported by the record. But when her claims are measured against the details of the agreements and the evidence she references, the picture becomes more complicated.

Economic claims

Hurtak first targets the Rays’ projections that the stadium district could create thousands of jobs and generate tens of billions in economic activity.

She cites decades of academic research showing that publicly subsidized sports stadiums often deliver limited local economic gains, and she calls the Rays’ projections ‘fabricated.’

The goals outlined by the Rays are ambitious, and there is ample research to justify a healthy dose of skepticism. Economists have consistently found that stadium subsidies tend to produce limited economic benefits compared to their public costs.

But that research is general, not an analysis of Tampa’s proposal.

The studies and examples Hurtak references involve projects with different financing structures, development plans and economic conditions. Tampa’s proposal links a new ballpark to a larger mixed-use redevelopment around Hillsborough College’s Dale Mabry campus and, with a tax structure based on future taxable value generated by that development.

None of this guarantees that the Rays’ projections will come to pass. At the same time, the broader research on stadium projects does not directly prove that Tampa’s projections are fabricated, either.

The same caution applies to Hurtak’s reference to a University of Chicago survey showing economists are skeptical of public stadium subsidies. The survey is a reason to scrutinize the deal, but it does not offer an analysis based on the specifics of Tampa’s proposal.

Hurtak also points to mixed-use stadium developments elsewhere have failed to “pay back” taxpayers. Those projects offer warnings worth considering, but examples from Arizona, Missouri, or Georgia are not direct comparisons to Tampa’s current financing, land ownership, and development structure.

Loan or contribution?

Hurtak is on firm ground when she rejects the idea that Tampa’s $80 million contribution is simply a loan to the Rays.

It isn’t. 

The agreement treats the money as a City contribution, not as money the Rays borrow and repay directly.

But Hurtak goes further, saying taxpayers ‘don’t ever get that money back.’ That leaves out a key part of the financing arrangement.

The agreement explicitly says Tampa’s share of future property tax growth captured through the proposed tax increment financing structure would be used to repay the City’s $80 million contribution, plus interest.

That does not mean the Rays are repaying the City directly. Instead, the repayment would come from future tax growth generated by the development.

Revisions released this week improved the terms for Tampa and Hillsborough County, allowing both governments to retain a larger share of future tax growth than under last week’s version of the agreement.

The bigger public tab

Hurtak is correct that Tampa’s $80 million is just one part of the overall public investment, and that fact has been clear throughout the process.

Tampa residents are also Hillsborough County taxpayers, and the County’s commitment would be significantly larger if Commissioners approve the deal on Friday.

Hurtak actually understated the county’s contribution by saying it would be ‘almost $700 million.’

Her number is low. The County contribution is capped at about $796 million, including $360 million from the Community Investment Tax, roughly $303 million through tourist development tax-backed financing and reserves, $103 million in other County resources and $30 million in federal disaster-recovery money.

Hurtak is also right that the $30 million comes from disaster-recovery funding. But describing it as money ‘supposed to be used to prevent flooding across the county’ oversimplifies how those funds can be used.

The federal CDBG-DR program can fund a range of long-term recovery and mitigation needs. Under the stadium agreement, this $30 million would be restricted to qualifying stormwater infrastructure and improvements within the redevelopment property that are eligible for federal reimbursement.

Other warnings

Hurtak closes with several additional concerns about potential future costs to taxpayers.

One of those concerns involves repairs. Hurtak says Tampa taxpayers could be left with a ‘blank check’ for future stadium renovations and maintenance.

There is a real unresolved question behind that description. A future TIF agreement is expected to spell out additional City and County commitments for certain capital maintenance and repairs at the ballpark. Those amounts have not yet been specified and would be on top of the public contributions already outlined.

But ‘blank check’ overstates what the current agreement says. The document refers to funding certain capital maintenance and repairs, not an unlimited commitment to cover any future stadium expense.

Hurtak’s allegation that the deal “illegally restricts” public-records requests also raises questions.

The agreement expressly requires StadCo to comply with Florida’s public records law and establishes a process for the company to identify records it believes are legally exempt, including potential trade secrets. City or County attorneys would review those claims, and StadCo could seek a protective order if government attorneys disagree. The agreement also states that public records disputes remain governed by Florida law.

That does not rule out a future legal dispute over how those provisions are applied. But the agreement’s language does not show that residents’ public-records rights are being ‘illegally’ restricted.

Hurtak is substantially right on another point. Hillsborough County would ultimately own the ballpark land and public project improvements after the roughly 21.5-acre parcel is transferred following substantial completion. 

But whether Tampa should seek a share of that asset, along with the responsibilities it brings, is ultimately a question for policymakers.

Hurtak is voicing concerns shared by many residents uneasy about the Rays stadium deal, and a public commitment of this size deserves scrutiny.

But while several of Hurtak’s arguments start with legitimate concerns, some of her claims do not fully hold up under closer journalistic examination.

To watch the Facebook video, please click the image below: