Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Tropicana Field topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

St. Petersburg council approves $22.54 million guaranteed maximum price to replace Tropicana Field roof

City of St. Petersburg City Council · April 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City of St. Petersburg approved funding and contract changes to replace Tropicana Field’s PTFE roof, adopting a GMP of $22,541,000 and related supplemental appropriations. The measures passed 7–1 amid debate over tariffs, acoustics and whether to seek a settlement with the Rays.

The St. Petersburg City Council voted 7–1 to authorize funding and contract changes to replace the top roof at Tropicana Field, approving a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) of $22,541,000 and related appropriations that together total a $23 million funding package.

City engineering staff told council the design‑build team led by Hennessy Construction and AECOM Hunt proposed fabricating the PTFE roof material in Germany, assembling bundles in China and air‑freighting four deliveries to St. Petersburg. Presentation materials estimated about 10 months of work from fabrication to installation; staff said the schedule includes built‑in weather contingencies and that the contractor carries responsibility for work during installation with city ownership and warranty after completion.

Vice Chair Hannah Hanowitz and other council members said the action responds to an existing use agreement requiring the city to make the stadium playable for Major League Baseball. Raul Quintana, city engineering and capital improvements, said analysis and field testing satisfied Major League Baseball and the Tampa Bay Rays on acoustics and lighting for a white PTFE material; staff noted the selection of white saved time and modest cost compared with beige.

Council members raised specific concerns: Councilmember Brandy Gabbard pressed staff on tariff exposure after recent tariff announcements and questioned whether the $100,000 tariff allowance in the GMP is sufficient; staff said that allowance sits within the subcontractor cost and that they have requested a subcontractor breakdown to quantify material and freight components. Members also questioned glare/reflection and acoustics; staff and consultants said studies by WJHW and field testing showed the white material met playability requirements and that sound system tuning could address any high‑frequency differences without reducing intelligibility.

Legal counsel and administration described the city’s bargaining position. City administration said prior discussions with the Rays about alternative financial resolutions had not produced a mutually acceptable settlement and that paying the team to walk away — thereby foregoing insurance and FEMA reimbursements — was economically unfavorable. Legal staff advised the council on possible remedies if the team fails to perform under the existing use agreement, including injunctive relief and damages.

Zoom and in‑person public commenters urged different approaches. Ron Diner told council not to approve the expenditure until more negotiation to end the use agreement took place, questioned possible escalation of costs and urged prioritizing infrastructure and hurricane recovery instead.

The council approved two separate resolutions: F‑3A to authorize supplemental appropriations and interfund transfers that fund the initial work, and F‑3B to accept the GMP and an assignment/amendment to the design‑build agreement to incorporate the joint venture and GMP. Clerk announcement showed both measures passed 7–1, with Councilmember Richie Floyd voting no on each.

Next steps: staff said early packages for exterior metal panels, architectural work, sports lighting and audio‑visual systems will return to council in coming months; staff targeted May or June for follow‑up packages and said they will continue to return cost details for later packages.