St. Petersburg officials are working behind the scenes to clarify the legal mechanics of a complex, three-way land transfer as the latest Tropicana Field redevelopment team seeks to bypass bureaucratic hurdles that helped doom the previous deal.
In early July, Mayor Ken Welch selected an $8.1 billion proposal from The Burg Bid to reimagine the 86-acre Historic Gas Plant District, currently home to the Trop. The development team, led by St. Petersburg-based Blake Investment Partners (BIP), is now asking his administration for a concrete roadmap on property conveyance.
Pete Van Warner, vice president of real estate development for BIP, explicitly requested the “mechanisms, process and expected timeframe” for transferring the land from Pinellas County to the city, and subsequently to the developers, in a Sept. 9 email obtained by the Tampa Bay Reporter.
“We understand the specifics of the city-to-BIP conveyance will be worked out in the development agreement; what we’re trying to get our arms around now is the county-to-city step,” Van Warner wrote to City Development Administrator James Corbett.
The city and development team has mostly been mum on the long-awaited and much maligned generational project for the past two months. Corbett provided a brief update to city council members at a committee meeting on Thursday, a day after receiving Van Warner’s email.
Corbett said St. Petersburg is in the “early stages” of drafting a term sheet that outlines a core economic structure. “So, it’s going to be land takedown, infrastructure, the community benefits mechanics and, ultimately, that will turn into a development agreement.”
Van Warner’s questions center on the land takedown process.
While the 86-acre site – once home to St. Petersburg’s largest enclave of Black residents – is typically considered city property, the county holds a temporary legal title to the approximately 13-acre stadium site.
Pinellas holds that title purely as a financial steward until underlying debt conditions are met, at which point it reverts to St. Petersburg. In his first of five questions to Corbett, Van Warner asked him to explain the “legal basis for the county returning the property to the city.”
“For example, does the existing interlocal agreement or deed contain a reverter or reconveyance obligation tied to the end of the stadium use, or does this require an affirmative act of the board of county commissioners?” Van Warner continued. “If the latter, is the county’s consent discretionary or obligated?”
Recent history illustrates why that question matters. Just ask Stuart Sternberg, former owner of the Tampa Bay Rays.
In late October 2024, team officials said the commission’s decision to postpone approving a bond issuance negated plans to open a new ballpark for the 2028 season – and the Rays could not afford related cost increases “alone.” Most stakeholders thought it was a perfunctory exercise.
However, the county and city, still reeling from an unprecedented hurricane season, refused to restructure agreed-upon terms. Sternberg formally walked away from an arduously negotiated redevelopment deal in March 2025, and sold the team in September.
“Do you foresee any issues with the county conveying the back, whether political, procedural or related to existing agreements (including the Rays’ lease)?” Van Warner wrote in his email.
“If there are any constraints on how the city may subsequently use or convey the property, we’d like to know those early. We ask all of this in the spirit of planning ahead so that we can align our DA (development agreement) timeline with the city’s conveyance process.”
Corbett forwarded the questions to St. Petersburg’s legal department and asked for associated documents ahead of a meeting with BIP. He also outlined his “current understanding” of the situation for verification.
Corbett, referencing the previous deal with the Rays, believes that Pinellas would continue to hold the title to county-owned land until the city is ready to acquire and convey individual parcels, as dictated by a 2002 interlocal agreement.
“The prior structure therefore appears to have treated the county conveyance as an existing contractual acquisition right rather than requiring the city to negotiate a new discretionary land transaction with the county for each parcel,” Corbett wrote. The previous agreement “also appears to have contemplated a coordinated or back-to-back closing” to streamline the process, which generally takes 30 to 90 days, he added.
The city’s current operating agreement with the Rays is a “separate issue that will have to be coordinated with the timing of redevelopment and access to the site,” Corbett continued. He also refrained from characterizing the county’s existing obligations and approval requirements until attorneys clarify “what remains operative” following the previous deal’s termination.
In addition, Corbett asked for specific guidance on whether land transfers require city and county approvals; how the current lease with the Rays affects timing or access; if there are any public notice, hearing, referendum or other procedural requirements; and if there are any restrictions or conditions that “could affect the city’s subsequent conveyance of the property to The Burg Bid.
“My goal is to give Pete (Van Warner) a preliminary response before our next meeting while being clear about what we know from the prior transaction, versus what still needs to be confirmed for the current deal,” Corbett concluded.
