A proposal for a new Tampa Bay Rays ballpark may have cleared its first hurdles, but will face refreshed scrutiny as lawmakers turn attention toward final agreement negotiations that could still swing votes against the project.
The memorandum of understanding (MOU) approved last week by Hillsborough County Commissioners and the Tampa City Council gave the Rays’ Tampa proposal a boost that also eased the minds of state lawmakers enough to push $50 million in funding toward the Hillsborough College Dale Mabry campus for renovations associated with the Rays deal. At the same time, Hillsborough College agreed to lease land necessary for the project and proposed entertainment district to the Rays for $10 per year for a 99-year term that includes options for extension.
Hillsborough County Chair Ken Hagan, who is also on the Tampa Sports Authority Board, told Florida Politics the MOU represents the most significant progress yet in a yearslong effort to secure a permanent home for the Rays in Tampa Bay.
But he emphasized that the ballpark is only one piece of a much larger proposal. While the stadium itself has been estimated at about $2.3 billion, Hagan said the full development planned around Hillsborough College, Dale Mabry Highway and Raymond James Stadium could reach up to $10 billion.
Hagan compared the potential scale to The Battery Atlanta, the mixed-use district around Truist Park, but said the Tampa proposal would involve an even larger footprint by around 55 acres.
“Most of the coverage has been on the ballpark itself, but the ballpark itself is a relatively small portion of the overall development,” Hagan said. “The total amount has been estimated to be in the $8 billion to $10 billion range. From that perspective, it’s larger than Waterstreet and Midtown combined. It’s enormous.”
Under the MOU, local public funding would be capped at $976 million, with Hillsborough County contributing up to $796 million and Tampa and its community redevelopment agency contributing up to $180 million combined.
Now that the MOU has been agreed to, Hagan said the next phase includes “intense negotiations” over roughly six or seven agreements covering issues such as financing, use, relocation and other project obligations. Hagan said his goal is to bring the final documents back to the County Commission and Tampa City Council by mid-July.
Hagan argues the public investment should be judged against what the area is likely to produce without the project. He said Drew Park has remained a redevelopment challenge for two decades and that the Rays proposal could dramatically change the long-term picture.
Hagan said county officials are approaching the deal with two guiding principles: protecting taxpayers and protecting Hillsborough County’s credit rating. He said the proposal does not rely on raising taxes or fees.
To do that, the MOU approved by the county does not bond out community investment tax (CIT) revenue as originally proposed, and instead spreads CIT revenue contributions to the project across a four-year period to avoid paying interest.
“The current proposal does not have us bonding the CIT dollars,” Hagan said. “By utilizing the current structure, we will save over $200 million in interest payments, so it actually frees up money to do more projects.”
Hagan also praised $50 million in state funding for the Hillsborough College Dale Mabry campus that followed local approval of the MOU. He said state involvement is critical and separates this effort from previous failed attempts to secure a new Rays ballpark.
State funds and donated land are earmarked specifically for college use, but college renovations are a necessary part of the overall ballpark and entertainment district proposal.
“This is the very first time the Governor has endorsed the plan and has ensured that there’s skin in the game from the state,” Hagan said.
Hagan did not comment on specifics about a 99-year lease approved by Hillsborough College Trustees with the Rays for $10 per year, but said he has heard general support from Trustees and Hillsborough College President Ken Atwater.
Hagan did, however, elaborate on an arrangement within the lease agreement that would give college land dedicated to the Rays stadium to Hillsborough County as a part of the deal. He said that structure has long been assumed in local stadium discussions and would be consistent with other major sports facilities in the county, including Raymond James Stadium, Benchmark International Arena and Steinbrenner Field.
He said county ownership would help ensure the county has a role in design and construction rather than simply contributing public money and walking away.
“It’s important whenever we’re talking about an investment of this magnitude that we not only have ownership, but that we’re involved every step of the way,” Hagan said. “We’re not simply giving them money and then saying good luck and walking away.”
That ownership question could become one of the clearer public benefits for the county, but the city’s return is more complicated, and potentially a sticking point as more detailed negotiations move forward.
If Tampa City Council Member Bill Carlson is to be believed, his swing vote could still make or break the deal if the Rays dig their heels in on points of concern during more binding negotiations.
Carlson told Florida Politics his support for the MOU should not be read as a commitment to the final deal, and said he is already frustrated with further negotiations with the team. He noted that one of the deal’s strongest supporters in Mayor Jane Castor does not get a vote on the City Council, and that he held the swing vote that kept the deal alive last week.
Carlson said he likes the Rays’ ownership group, the proposed location and the idea of connecting the team’s development with Hillsborough College. But he questioned whether Tampa can afford to dedicate $180 million toward the deal while facing infrastructure, stormwater, road and deferred maintenance needs.
“The only downside is we don’t have any money,” Carlson said. “It’s not like we have a choice, that we have money that we can spend. We actually don’t have the money. Just in road repair we have $2 billion in deferred maintenance, and we have much more if you include stormwater. People don’t want their houses to flood, and we don’t have money to fix the flooding.”
Carlson also raised concerns about the city’s Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) contribution. He argued that because property tax growth within the district would be captured inside the CRA and directed back into the project, the city may not receive a general property tax benefit from the development.
“Because of the CRA slash tax abatement, there’s going to be no property tax benefit to the city. All the property taxes would be included in this project,” Carlson said.
“If this was a real estate project, I would be against the tax subsidy because it’s not fair. Every real estate project has to compete against other real estate projects for tenants, and so you take Midtown for example. That got zero subsidy. Why is it fair that somebody else’s real estate project is subsidized?”