Hillsborough County staff flag big funding gaps, legal and timing hurdles for proposed Rays stadium district

Hillsborough County officials on April 16 received a staff briefing and an independent AECOM analysis of a proposed Tampa Bay Rays stadium district on the Hillsborough College site, but commissioners were left with unanswered questions about assumptions, financing and legal limits on using voter-approved community investment tax (CIT) revenues.

AECOM senior analyst Dylan Gilman told commissioners the firm’s model — which begins with an assumed 2029 delivery — estimates roughly $63,000,000,000 in direct economic impact over a 30-year period and nearly $2,800,000,000 in gross tax collections over the same period, based on the firm’s stated assumptions. "These fiscal impacts are only based on direct on-site activities," Gilman said, and he repeatedly cautioned that limited site details and program assumptions constrain precision.

County staff framed the proposal as a mixed-use district that would include a 31,000-seat ballpark and about 7,600,000 square feet of ancillary development on roughly 130 acres. Chief Financial Administrator Tom Fessler said the Rays’ original local funding request of $1.15 billion had been reduced in the draft MOU to a proposed county contribution of about $750 million, with a proposed $251 million contribution from the city of Tampa; he emphasized that nothing has been committed.

Why it matters: the board must weigh potential long-term revenue and development against near-term financing risk and legal constraints on taxpayer funding. County administrator Bonnie opened the workshop saying the item "is potentially significant and warrants this board's thoughtful consideration and careful evaluation." She and staff stressed that an MOU will not be forwarded until unresolved issues are addressed.

Legal and bond issues: County attorney Julia Mandell summarized an outside bond-counsel opinion from Bryant Miller Olive and said the letter concluded "there is no prohibition about using the CIT renewal funding as a source of revenue to pay for a new county-owned sports facility." Mandell also said she might seek an additional election-law opinion to examine voter intent if needed.

Staff cautioned, however, that the county’s and the team’s CIT assumptions differ. Fessler said the county could not accept the Rays’ $600 million CIT availability figure without adjustments and that bond-issuance rules create a narrow range for growth assumptions; he explained a 4% growth assumption could trigger taxable-bond treatment, while a 3.7% assumption would preserve tax-exempt issuance but reduce proceeds.

Board concerns and open items: Commissioners pressed for verification of the Rays ownership group’s private financing capacity, asked how affordable housing or a leaseback of Hillsborough College would change assessed-value and taxability, and raised traffic and parking concerns around Dale Mabry and Drew Park. Justin Hall from FDOT District 7 said the state has programmed targeted intersection and pedestrian improvements tied to the project and characterized the funding as additional state resources.

Several commissioners said community benefits agreements and neighborhood input must be central to negotiations, and some urged caution about front-loading taxpayer dollars during construction. As one commissioner summarized, staff must protect the county’s triple-A bond ratings and avoid taking on undue development risk.

What’s next: staff outlined a series of next steps that include continued negotiations with the Rays, additional legal review, verification of financial capacity, public hearings, and intergovernmental approvals (city council, CRA, planning and zoning). Staff and the board acknowledged a May 6 target for returning to the board would be aggressive given the unresolved issues.

The workshop produced no formal votes. Staff said they will continue analyses and negotiations and will not bring any agreement forward until the MOU is complete and the county’s outstanding concerns are addressed.