The post Hillsborough County approves Tampa Bay Rays stadium MOU appeared first on Florida Politics – Campaigns & Elections. Lobbying & Government..
—
Hillsborough County Commissioners have officially OK’d a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Tampa Bay Rays for a new ballpark in Tampa.
The vote comes a week after county, city and team officials announced preliminary agreement to the MOU, and released details about its financial framework. The Tampa City Council is set to vote on its own portion of the MOU on Thursday.
The nonbinding MOU does not finalize a stadium deal, but it marks the first major local vote on a proposal that would commit nearly $1 billion in public support toward a $2.3 billion ballpark and a mixed-use district at Hillsborough College’s Dale Mabry campus.
The vote also moves the Rays one step closer toward the team’s goal to open the 2029 season at a new stadium after the club’s lease at Tropicana Field expires.
There is still plenty left to negotiate before a final deal, according to county staff. Unresolved issues include funding and surety for a portion of community investment tax (CIT) funding that would be dedicated to the project, the ownership of non-ballpark land underlying private development, a team commitment to a minimum valuation for private development, and recourse if the development component does not materialize.
“We all want to believe that is going to happen,” Deputy County Administrator Greg Horwedel said. “As President (Ronald) Reagan famously said, trust but verify. That’s been our approach through this conversation.”
The framework would cap the local public contribution at $976 million, with Hillsborough County contributing up to $796 million and Tampa and its Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) adding another $180 million combined. The Rays would be responsible for the remaining stadium costs and cost overruns.
County funding would include $360 million in CIT revenue, about $263 million in tourist development tax bond proceeds, a $40 million sixth-cent tourist tax reserve payment, $30 million in federal disaster recovery dollars for stormwater work, and $103 million from other county sources.
Tampa’s portion would include $80 million from city revenues and up to $100 million from CRA funds specifically tied to the surrounding development.
County Commissioner Joshua Wostal, one of two Commissioners who voted against the proposal, criticized many aspects of the deal through sharp questioning of County Administrator Bonnie Wise designed to dispute claims by the Tampa Bay Rays that the deal does no harm to other taxpayer-funded projects.
Wostal and other critics have argued that bonding future CIT revenue could limit the county’s ability to fund other projects, especially if collections fall short or if the surrounding development does not generate the tax growth projected by the team.
New to the current deal, the county would no longer aim to bond CIT revenue, as previously discussed, to provide a lump sum of upfront funding to the Rays. Instead, the county would spread CIT revenue payments out across the first four years of the project. The switch allows the county to avoid interest payments, but requires officials to dedicate nearly half of projected tax revenues to the project for years.
Wostal said that could delay other projects depending on CIT revenues, and that there is no guarantee that future boards would ever re-appropriate funds toward the same efforts years down the road.
He also questioned whether a deal with the Rays could have adverse effects on future talks with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for needed renovations at Raymond James Stadium that will likely include a shade structure — a costly endeavor that would likely force the county to dip into the same revenue sources as the Rays.
That follows recent dollars committed to the Tampa Bay Lighting for renovations at Benchmark International Arena.
“I liken the ‘do-no-harm’ clause as the tactic of a used car salesman, much of how this deal has been crammed down the taxpayers’ throats,” Wostal said in closing his questioning.
“This clause should be struck because it is completely unenforceable and unattainable, and this MOU absolutely imposes risk and harm not only to law enforcement and first responders but also the general taxpayers, and nobody can suggest otherwise.”
Meanwhile, the proposal’s supporters said the ballpark district would remake a lagging Drew Park redevelopment area, breathe new life to Hillsborough College’s aging Dale Mabry campus and create a larger entertainment district near Raymond James Stadium, Steinbrenner Field, Westshore, Tampa International Airport and major regional highways.
“This really can be a transformative project, but it can only be a transformative project if we have a little bit of courage and a little bit of faith,” County Commissioner Harry Cohen said. “That means saying yes today. This isn’t a final yes, it’s a conditional yes. But to say no puts the whole thing to bed. It’s over and the Rays would be out of here before you can blink.”
Many residents took their turn at the podium on Wednesday as well. Karen Jaroch, a Northdale resident and former State Director for Heritage Action for America, argued that voters approved the extension of the community investment tax to fund critical public infrastructure, not to subsidize a private baseball franchise.
She said the proposal would divert roughly $360 million in county CIT revenue to the stadium in the first four years, pushing transportation, stormwater and public safety projects “to the back of the line.” Jaroch also questioned whether the surrounding development needed such a large public subsidy, pointing to Midtown Tampa as an example of major private development built nearby without taxpayer support.
“Development does not require $1.5 billion in taxpayer subsidies to occur. The land itself is immensely valuable and could be sold without handing over a massive public subsidy,” she said.
If the county were to move forward, she said taxpayers should receive something closer to an equity stake in return rather than funding the project without sharing in revenues such as naming rights — which she said could generate $500 million over 30 years.
“If this were ‘Shark Tank,’ Kevin O’Leary or Mark Cuban would never put up $1.5 billion without exacting a large equity stake,” Jaroch said. “This equity stake would make taxpayers true partners, not just funders.”
Laura Lawson, a longtime Tampa resident, lawyer and former legislative aide to then-County Commissioner Pat Kemp, also urged a “no” vote.
She recalled that a supermajority of the Commission previously expressed opposition to using CIT dollars for a new stadium, when Commissioners stressed focus on projects such as fire stations, road resurfacing, intersections and parks. She criticized the board for not putting it in writing, noting that calls to do so fell short because it would have required an additional public hearing.
Lawson said leaders should “forget the Rays timeline” and first protect Hillsborough College and Tax Collector assets from disruption, including classroom space, lab space and college programming.
Meanwhile, supporters like Michael Maurino, Executive Director of the Westshore Alliance, said the proposal offered the “best possible return” for a public-private investment because the site is underutilized and undertaxed.
He noted that the Drew Park CRA has historically lagged behind other redevelopment areas, and said the project could generate economic impact for the community, support transportation improvements and use public dollars to maximize private investment.
“The cost of doing nothing is far greater than the cost of this project,” Maurino said.
The MOU is intended to launch the next phase of negotiations among the Rays, Hillsborough County, Tampa, the Tampa Sports Authority, the Tampa CRA, Hillsborough College and other parties.
Most immediately, the agreement could sway ongoing state budget negotiations that may include funding toward the project.
Gov. Ron DeSantis has said he supports the Tampa site and believes Major League Baseball wants the Rays to remain in Florida, but he has drawn a line against direct state funding for the stadium itself. He has left open the possibility of state support for transportation, infrastructure and Hillsborough College improvements tied to the broader project.
The Senate previously backed a $50 million request for Hillsborough College, though the House did not include the money in its budget plan. Senate Appropriations Chair Ed Hooper urged caution while local officials work through the stadium deal, but the MOU could go a long way toward alleviating those concerns. Sources with knowledge of the situation have told Florida Politics that funds for Hillsborough College are still in play, likely through the Public Education Capital Outlay report.
The Hillsborough vote now shifts attention to the Tampa City Council, where members will decide Thursday whether the city
