Non-binding. We’re going to hear that phrase repeated ad nauseam from elected officials this week. And rightly so. The vote doesn’t make any formal commitments beyond that negotiations will continue to resolve the outstanding questions local government have for the Rays and for the local governments to begin the process to bring formal votes for all of the necessary governmental elements such as “Modifying the County’s and City’s respective CIT project list, is amended, following respective public hearings, to include the New Ballpark Project as a ‘public facility’.”

That has to happen legally before the local governments can provide the funds. So the MOU can’t supersede that vote.

A vote to approve the MOU can be symbolic that you’re on board with changing the CIT project list and the dollars suggested or it can be an acknowledgement you’re willing to listen more about the financials. To hear the arguments for and against modifying the project list with more information. This is politics and the state is watching.

Approving an MOU while the spotlight is brightest and then having the fight in September while everyone else is ramping up for an election wouldn’t be the worst idea and might come the closest to putting the issue on the ballot as it gets. Which, as a reminder, this city council voted down Council member Luis Viera’s motion to consider moving Tampa elections to fall, mid-term elections like St. Petersburg has. Tampa’s candidates will campaign until March of 2027 on the issue. Some county commission seats are on the fall ballot as will be a vote to eliminate at-large county seats and increase the size of the commission to 9.

For the CRA, in order to commit $100 million in 4 years the Drew Park redevelopment plan needs to be changed to include this project. That process also requires public hearings and community outreach. Most of the districts have been updating and modifying their plans over the past year and those took what felt like a year to get to a vote. If not longer. There’s only so much of a fast track you can do and follow state law. That doesn’t include the requirement to re-open the inter-local agreement between the city and county and extend the district term to the “maximum term permissible”. It’s currently set to sunset in 2034.

The Numbers

The MOU outlines the city’s CIT contribution as $80 million in four separate installments. A document included in the county’s agenda show’s the $20 million starting FY27 through FY30. There is a provision for the city if after 15 years there hasn’t been 3.25% annual growth a $15 million fund would be available to offset the difference. If the difference is more than $15 million, that’s on people who approved the project list change. The $100 million from The CRA would be a bond issued in FY30. The Rays would pay a “rent’ to The CRA for the difference between the interest payment and the what the district sees in increased tax revenue until such time incremental tax increases can pay the bond completely. At such point, the Rays could claw back any rent they paid in the beginning.

Making an assumption — the only way the city could commit future revenue beyond FY27 is part of the equation in modifying the CIT project list and adding the stadium as a public facility. There are obligations outlined in that document already for Bucs, Lightning and Steinbrenner Field. Otherwise the next mayor and city council could be fighting early in their first term over appropriating the remaining funds.

The original discussion was to bond CIT funds for an upfront payment. That appears to be a major change in this MOU with the 4 installments. Which, if you support using the CIT funds for the stadium, might be the best way. Rip off the band-aid and give them the funds off the top and avoid interest payments. Sacrifice parks and delay a few capital improvement projects a couple of years and in 4 years over commit to those projects. If you’re still in office. Because no doubt there will be people running against having made those sacrifices and delaying projects for a baseball stadium. Drew Park revitalization will still be a dream in 2030.

The other defense I could see used for approving the MOU but remaining non-committal is to say, “now let’s see what the state is kicking in. If Hillsborough College is made whole, I’m willing to look at the project list closer and listen to my constituents.”

There are a lot of ways to rationalize your way to yes on this proposal and the prospect of a re-imagined Drew Park where the community is center to the redevelopment and staking your political career to doing what some have said has never been done could be one.

And all of this is working off the assumption that the Rays can provide the financial details and good faith effort to value engineer the stadium staff are asking for. The city and county wouldn’t bring the CIT project list up for a vote (shouldn’t) until all of the cards are on the table.

My half-baked take

I think it’s not a horrible option for the city. I think there’s a way to leverage the $100 million from the CRA down the road to do some good things for a part of town that deserves thoughtful redevelopment.

But let’s be honest, if the lawyers are saying this stadium isn’t included in the CIT as written, the argument the residents of Hillsborough County didn’t vote to approve this stadium when approving the tax seems to be on the table.

And thus far, I’ve only looked at this through the lens of the city. The county contribution is four and a half that of the city. $360 million in CIT. It includes $103 million in reserves/cash and bonding $268 million in Tourist Development Tax plus another $35 million in TDT down the road. Add another $30 million from Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Disaster Recovery funds. It’s a lot. Even if they will “own” the stadium.

I think rationalizing the county vote is harder. A whole lot harder. Maybe even impossible.