A seemingly routine financing decision for a new Tampa Bay Rays stadium nearly stalled in Tampa City Council chambers Thursday after the first vote ended in a tie.
Officials scrambled to find a solution after the 3-3 stalemate. Councilmember Bill Carlson, historically a swing vote on ballpark agreements, was not present.
Those who’ve followed the Rays stadium saga likely felt déjà vu after the unexpected hurdle. In late October 2024, previous leadership said Pinellas County’s decision to postpone approving a bond issuance negated plans to begin the 2028 season in a new ballpark – and the team could not afford associated cost increases “alone.”
Time is also of the essence for the new ownership group, which will not begin construction in Tampa until public funding sources are approved. They have also repeatedly emphasized the importance of opening a new stadium in time for the 2029 season.
“The community benefits agreement is not done,” said Councilmember Charlie Miranda. “The deal for the stadium is not done. We can sign all this – at the end, they build a stadium, they don’t have to build the rest (of the mixed-use development).”
The debate centered on a bond validation that could finance the city’s $80 million contribution to a new $2.36 billion ballpark. Once approved, a court can authorize or deny an issuance.
Officials have not committed to taking on debt to cover the $80 million. Hillsborough County will allocate $796 million to a new ballpark.
City Attorney Scott Steady said the issuance “may be advantageous” for Tampa. He also noted that a validation hearing could benefit opponents, like Miranda.
“Whether you’re for or against the Rays, we’re in a position right now, from the city attorney’s standpoint, that we’re obligated for the $80 million,” Steady said. “It is prudent to validate that $80 million and be subject to someone challenging. Frankly, if you want to have some attorney challenge it, they’re going to have an opportunity at the validation hearing.”
Councilmembers Lynn Hurtak, Guido Maniscalco and Miranda, who opposed the stadium deal, voted against the bond authorization. Councilmembers Naya Young, Luis Viera and Chair Alan Clendenin voted in favor.
“Not my problem,” Hurtak said of the motion dying in a tie.
“Absolutely not,” Miranda concurred.
The initial 3-3 deadlock would have moved the matter to the council’s next meeting on Nov. 5. That redux could have also ended in a stalemate.
Viera, a state representative candidate and “yes” vote, will resign Nov. 2, a day before the election. His replacement remains unknown, as do their views on the stadium deal.
“There’s no sense of urgency here,” Hurtak said. “We’re going to have a new council member by the 17th.”
The initial draw, however, did not spell disaster for the deal’s proponents. Carlson, who was out sick, joined the meeting virtually and broke the tie.
“I happened to turn this on and saw what was happening,” Carlson said.
After casting his vote, and bemoaning the “hysteria and the misinformation out there,” Carlson said he was “going back to bed.”
With all seven council members present, the authorization passed 4-3. No date has been set for the validation hearing.
Chief Financial Officer Dennis Rogero said the total stadium commitment could exceed $140 million, including interest. “I think it would be almost a dereliction of duty not to put that tool in the toolbox,” Clendinin said of a potential bond issuance.
Hurtak emphatically disagreed. “I’m so sorry that you all voted for it and you’ll have to figure out how to pay for it,” she said.
“It’s not my problem.”
