Janelle Irwin Taylor
Less than two weeks after St. Petersburg City Council revived what was thought to be a dead deal, Pinellas County Commissioners approved the bond resolution needed to move the Tampa Bay Rays stadium deal forward.
Commissioner Chris Latvala, considered one of three possible swing votes, voted in favor of the deal, noting that he didn’t want Rays owner Stu Sternberg to reap the benefits of a land deal in St. Petersburg if the Rays didn’t play baseball there. While he voted “yes,” he said, “our fans and residents deserve a new owner.”
The resolution passed 5-2, with new Commissioners Vince Nowicki and Chris Scherer voting against the deal. Latvala, Dave Eggers, Rene Flowers, Kathleen Peters and Brian Scott voted favorably.
The vote means both the city of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County have now upheld their respective ends of the stadium and adjacent land redevelopment deal, putting the ball in the Rays’ court to continue moving forward.
The Pinellas County Commission approved its version of the stadium deal earlier this year. It called for $312.5 million in bonds from the county’s tourism development tax, which visitors pay on hotel and other lodging stays. The Commission was set to approve the bonds last month, just before Thanksgiving, but delayed the vote until Dec. 17. Before that, the Commission was scheduled to vote on the resolution on Oct. 29.
A different Commission initially approved the stadium deal. Since the Oct. 29 vote was delayed, two Democratic Commissioners have left the dais — one retired and the other lost their re-election bid — and have been replaced by Republican members who were skeptical of the deal.
Nowicki replaced Charlie Justice after defeating him in the Nov. 5 election. Nowicki made it clear in the late November meeting that he vehemently opposed the Rays stadium deal. Scherer, who won the election to replace the retiring Janet Long, also expressed reluctance over the deal and related bonds but expressed willingness to discuss options with the team and other leaders. Scherer ultimately declined to support the bond resolution but said he might have gotten to “yes” eventually. He had hoped to delay the vote again.
While the Commission’s vote keeps the deal alive, it may still be on life support.
The Rays had already stated that the Commission’s first delay — from the postponed Oct. 29 vote — meant a new stadium would not be ready for the 2028 season and would push their move-in date to a new stadium to the 2029 season. In a letter to the County Commission ahead of the Nov. 19 vote, which was also delayed, Rays co-Presidents Brian Auld and Matt Silverman said, “A 2029 ballpark delivery would result in significantly higher costs that we are not able to absorb alone.”
When St. Pete City Council also delayed its vote in late November, Auld told reporters after the meeting that the deal was dead. But in talks with the city of St. Pete leaders, Auld reportedly had a change of heart, according to St. Pete Mayor Ken Welch, who told St. Pete City Council earlier this month that “there is consensus that the agreement that you all approved in July is valid and in effect.”
Still at issue, though, is who will cover cost overruns related to a delayed new stadium opening. The Rays have not said how much they expect the overruns to be, but the team is responsible for covering them under the deal with the city and the county.
Given that the Rays have said they can’t absorb those increases alone and that Welch previously vowed to the St. Pete City Council at the late-November meeting that the city would not come back to the table for more money than was already on offer—$87.5 million for the stadium and $142 million for the adjacent Gas Plant District—it remains unclear how the parties will bridge that funding gap.
St. Pete City Administrator Rob Gerdes had previously said at the City Council meeting earlier this month that the city was helping Rays leadership connect with other partners who may be able to help cover cost overruns. He suggested possible creative solutions, such as stadium naming rights or sponsorship opportunities.
Land development rights are currently at the center of the issue. Under the approved contract with the Rays for the stadium and Gas Plant deal, the Rays forfeit land rights to the Gas Plant District if they back out of the agreement. However, if the city or county backs out, the Rays could retain development rights at the site.
If the Commission approves bond resolutions, the Rays would likely be the ones to end the deal. This would preserve development rights for the city and county, including revenue resulting from such development. Thus, the Rays have a solid incentive to keep the deal alive.
