Hillsborough County BOCC Tampa Bay Rays Workshop Summary – April 16, 2026
Hillsborough County BOCC Tampa Bay Rays Workshop – April 16, 2026
The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners held a workshop on April 16, 2026, from 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM to receive updates on negotiations with the Tampa Bay Rays regarding a proposed $2.3 billion, 31,000-seat ballpark and a 7.6 million-square-foot mixed-use Stadium District on the Hillsborough Community College Dale Mabry Campus. The workshop included presentations from AECOM on economic and fiscal impact analysis, a legal opinion from bond counsel on Community Investment Tax (CIT) usage, and a staff overview of public funding options and open deal points. No formal votes were taken.
Presentation by AECOM (Dillon Gilman, Senior Analyst)
- AECOM presented an independent analysis estimating total supportable development in the Stadium District at 7.6 million square feet over 30 years (2029-2058), including 5.9 million square feet of market-driven ancillary development and 1.7 million square feet of planned "Other Uses."
- 30-year gross fiscal impacts from "Confirmed Available" sources (including ad valorem taxes for the City and County, state and county sales taxes, tourism development tax, and a proposed 8% admissions surcharge on ticket sales within the district with a minimum ticket price threshold and maximum fee per ticket) were estimated at $2.8 billion (revised from $2.2 billion in an earlier version due to a corrected sales tax calculation).
- Net collections from Confirmed Available sources (available for project funding after accounting for existing commitments) were estimated at $1.4 billion, with Hillsborough County collecting $923 million (66%) and the City of Tampa collecting $482 million (33%).
- AECOM estimated Phase 1 assessed values at $1.4 billion in 2034, and total assessed values for the Stadium District (excluding the stadium and Hillsborough Community College) at $4.8 billion in 2058.
- Direct economic impacts were estimated at $63 billion in output, $19.8 billion in wage earnings, and 7,400 jobs (30-year annual average). Adding indirect impacts brings total output to $75.5 billion, earnings to $24.7 billion, and average annual jobs to 9,760.
- AECOM noted that detailed site plans were not provided, requiring assumptions about development type and intensity. A preliminary parking analysis was shared, but critical size and location details were missing.
- AECOM's analysis found significant differences from RCLCO's (the Rays' consultant) estimates. AECOM's gross collections from Confirmed Available sources were $2.8 billion, while RCLCO's were $6.05 billion—a difference of $3.81 billion. AECOM stated RCLCO's implied taxable sales ($38.9 billion) exceed total direct output for the 30-year period, suggesting the RCLCO figure likely includes indirect activity.
- AECOM's report stated that its scope of work did not involve a full market and feasibility study for the "Other Uses" concepts (Lifestyle Fitness, Immersive Sports, Live Entertainment Venue), and revenue estimates relied on benchmark facilities completed before recent venue announcements in the local market.
- In response to Commissioner Wilson's questions:
- AECOM confirmed that detailed site plans were not provided, and that the Stadium District's ability to capture 5% of citywide development was an estimate based on available data.
- AECOM confirmed that their analysis assumed 100% market-rate multifamily based on feedback from the Rays, and that if affordable housing were included, it would negatively impact taxability.
- AECOM confirmed that their attendance analysis estimates the Rays would average 20,500 paid attendance per game over the first three years after moving to a new stadium, placing them in the bottom third of MLB attendance. This is based on a 10-33% initial boost that typically reverts to pre-new stadium levels after three years, based on comparable teams (Miami Marlins, Minnesota Twins, Washington Nationals).
- AECOM acknowledged a formula error in the original report that double-counted Community Development District (CDD) collections from Other Uses, reducing the 30-year CDD estimate from $136 million to $26 million for Other Uses.
- AECOM stated that the report does not recommend specific financing options and is not meant to establish financing for the project.
Legal Opinion on CIT Usage (County Attorney Julia Mandell)
- County Attorney Mandell presented an outside legal opinion from Bryant Miller Olive (BMO), the county's bond counsel for 25 years, on the permissibility of using Community Investment Tax (CIT) funds for a new ballpark.
- BMO's opinion concluded that a publicly-owned ballpark leased or licensed to a professional baseball team can reasonably be characterized as a "recreational facility" and therefore a "public facility" under the infrastructure surtax statute (Section 212.055(2), Fla. Stat.), qualifying for CIT funding.
- BMO further opined that since a motion to prohibit CIT use for a new sports stadium was withdrawn without a vote during the April 17, 2024 ordinance adoption, and neither the ordinance nor the ballot question contained such an express prohibition, the limitation does not apply.
- The opinion also stated that CIT proceeds could be expended on a facility constructed on property initially owned by a governmental entity (like Hillsborough Community College) and subsequently conveyed to the county.
- Mandell noted that the initial CIT project list approved in July 2024 did not include a ballpark, but the resolution can be amended following a noticed public hearing.
- Mandell stated that she would pursue an additional outside legal opinion from an election law expert regarding voter intent, after concerns were raised by Commissioner Walthall.
- Commissioner Walthall expressed concern that county staff may face subpoenas regarding how the CIT was marketed to the public, noting that the City of Tampa's chief of staff had advertised that no new facilities would be funded by the CIT.
Staff Presentation on Public Funding Options (Deputy County Administrator Greg Horwedel & Chief Financial Administrator Tom Fessler)
- Greg Horwedel stated that the Rays' initial request for local public funding was $1.15 billion, which has been reduced to $1.001 billion due to reclassification of some sources from public to private (ticket surcharge, construction fund interest, and Florida Sports Development Program funding).
- The board's guiding principles have been: do not jeopardize the county's three "AAA" credit ratings; minimize development risk (public funds should not be committed until private financing is secured, public bonds are validated, and legal issues are resolved); and no public funding for items without a public benefit.
- The funding options presented total approximately $1.001 billion from county and city sources, with a $75 million shortfall (93% of the Rays' request).
- Community Investment Tax (CIT): The option proposes raising the annual growth rate assumption from 3% to 3.7%, which would generate approximately $336 million in bond proceeds. Staff rejected the Rays' requested 4% assumption because it would require taxable bonds, reducing proceeds by $100 million. A "make whole" guarantee from the Rays is required to protect other CIT projects if revenue underperforms.
- Tourist Development Tax (TDT) – 6th Cent: This option totals $268 million, including $228 million from 35-year bonds and $40 million from reserve cash. Staff noted that the 6th Cent currently funds Visit Tampa Bay, the Cultural Assets Program, and the Tampa Convention Center.
- Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) Tax Increment Financing: $170 million.
- Reserves: Staff identified up to $132 million in unrestricted reserves (including State Shared Revenue, Economic Development, and Capital Project reserves), but noted this would reduce budget flexibility.
- CDBG Disaster Recovery: $30 million, contingent on HUD approval for stormwater improvements in Drew Park.
- Additional funding options under discussion (not yet agreed upon) include Opportunity Zone Tax Credits, New Market Tax Credits, a Community Development District (CDD), Special Assessment District, and state transportation improvements.
- Open deal points requiring further negotiation include:
- Bond tax status (taxable vs. tax-exempt)
- Bond validation and legal challenge resolution
- Form and surety for "make whole" project guarantee
- Land ownership and impact on ad valorem tax revenue
- Verification of financial capacity of Rays ownership group
- Timing of public fund expenditures
- Value engineering of the ballpark
- Ownership of the stadium after the lease term ends
- Responsibility for stadium capital expenditures/maintenance
- Parking facilities and revenue allocation
- Relocation of Tax Collector facility
- Impact on other sports facilities (Lightning, Buccaneers, Yankees)
- Staff stated that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) cannot be finalized until numerous open issues are resolved, and the timeline is uncertain. Staff pushed back on a May 6, 2026 deadline.
Board Discussion
- Commissioner Hagan: Emphasized the value of partnerships with existing sports teams (Lightning, Buccaneers, Yankees) and stated that commitments to them have not been reduced. Noted the Drew Park CRA generated only $28 million over 22 years, compared to the projected $907 million in property tax revenue over 30 years from the Stadium District. Asked staff to continue working on remaining deal points ahead of May 6, but recognized the need for team concessions.
- Commissioner Wilson: Questioned AECOM on missing documentation, the gap between AECOM and RCLCO estimates, and the impact of affordable housing on the analysis. Voiced concern that the county would front-load taxpayer money with no significant team investment in the initial phase.
- Commissioner Walthall: Suggested a TDT rebate model similar to the Tampa Bay Lightning agreement, which he calculated could provide $738 million over 35 years. Stated that the Rays have not yet substantiated their financial capacity. Expressed concern about parking impacts on West Tampa neighborhoods.
- Commissioner Miller: Asked about the $20 billion gap between RCLCO and AECOM economic impact estimates. Noted traffic concerns from constituents and questioned the effectiveness of proposed state transportation funding focused on pedestrian improvements.
- Commissioner Cohen: Clarified that CIT funds being discussed for the ballpark come from a $545 million "Community Facilities" subcategory and do not affect transportation, public safety, or other CIT projects. Stressed the need for transparent Community Benefits Agreements, a traffic analysis, resolution of the Tax Collector office relocation, and protection of other sports teams' interests. Expressed hope for a yes vote but only if the deal is right for taxpayers.
- Commissioner Myers: Expressed hope that the $75 million shortfall can be resolved and that constituent services promised under the CIT will be preserved.
- Commissioner Cameron Cepeda: Stated opposition to any burden on taxpayers and concern about existing traffic congestion on Dale Mabry.
- Commissioner Bowles: Focused on risk-reward balance and the need for durable, long-term fiscal returns to fund core county priorities like fire stations.
Key Outcomes
- No formal votes were taken. The board provided direction for staff to continue negotiations.
- Staff will pursue a second outside legal opinion on voter intent regarding CIT use.
- Staff identified the need to resolve significant open issues, including the form of the "make whole" guarantee, bond tax status, land ownership, and verification of the Rays' financial capacity, before an MOU can be drafted.
- The board's guiding principles (no risk to AAA credit rating, no public funds before private financing is secured, no funding for non-public benefit items) remain in effect.
- Staff will continue discussions with the Rays on funding options, potentially including a reimbursement-based TDT model and a revised CIT growth rate of 3.7%.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon. It's uh April 16, 2026. Welcome to the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners Tampa Bay Ray's workshop. Uh, before I pass things over to the county administrator for opening remarks, a couple of uh comments. You'll see that the workshop is scheduled from one thirty to three today. Commissioner Cohen uh has a flight to take shortly after that. Commissioner Miller has child care duties, and I have to leave shortly after that as well. So I'm gonna ask speakers to be mindful of the time so we leave plenty of time for board uh questions and comments. Uh, secondly, there are three uh primary goals of today's meeting provide an update and status of negotiations to receive uh board uh input and direction, and to provide transparency to the public. We will not negotiate in public. With that, uh Bonnie, if you'd like to make some opening remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome everybody. And today, as you mentioned, we're convening today's workshop to provide an update on the ongoing discussions regarding the opportunity for the Tampa Bay rays to relocate to Hillsborough County. The proposal under consideration includes a approximately a thirty-one thousand seat ballpark and approximately seven point six million square feet of surrounding development on the Hillsborough College site. Some of those issues will be discussed during today's workshop. The financial request from the team is substantial, over a billion dollars, and would exceed any comparable requests for professional sports facility by a local government that we are aware of. That reality requires careful scrutiny and disciplined evaluation. You'll also hear today from County Attorney Mandel regarding the permissible use of the community investment tax for a project of this nature. And I also want to take a moment to address some questions that have arisen regarding how these funds were anticipated to be used. There were several categories that we outlined in 2024. They include transportation and public works, public safety, public facilities, and public utilities. We'll focus on the public utility, sorry, public facilities category because other than contingency, that is the one category we're considering utilizing. Within public facilities, there's a subcategory entitled Community Facilities, and that subcategory was funded at $545 million. Within that category, several types of projects were identified as eligible, including Raymond James Stadium, Amelie Arena at the time, now Benchmark International Arena, Steinbrenner Field, Tournament Sports Facilities, A PET Resources Shelter, and Community Facilities Other. However, it's important to note that only the total funding amount for this category was approved. Eligibility within that category does not constitute a determination of priority or appropriateness for funding. No specific allocations were designated for any individual project or entity. While internal estimates were developed at the time, those figures were preliminary, not part of any formal approval, and were never promised or guaranteed to any group. These are taxpayer dollars, and only this board has the authority to allocate them through formal action. That action has not occurred. It is also worth noting that since the CIT's approval in 2024, the board has made significant additional investments in several of these community assets without the need to rely on these CIT funds, including most recently $18 million for Steinbrenner Field and 250 million dollars for benchmark international arena. This was done because we recognize the strong partnerships we have with these teams, including the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. We also recognize that these are county-owned facilities and that they allow for a multitude of events to be held, which provide tremendous impact to our community. That continued support is warranted. You also hear from staff today regarding the financial structure being requested by the RAIS. One key issue is the request for substantial upfront funding during the construction period. This creates challenges in identifying viable and responsible revenue sources. The financial strategies that will be presented today are just that. They are options. They are not recommendations and they require further analysis and vetting. Importantly, the team also has not agreed to the financing concepts being presented today, nor to several of the county's core requirements. Those discussions are ongoing and no final terms have been reached. Finally, you'll hear more today about the proposed timeline and potential next steps. But let me be clear: a project of this scale and importance demands thoughtful, deliberate consideration. We will not bring forward an agreement for board consideration before it is fully developed and thoroughly evaluated. There is still substantial work to be done and many questions that must be answered. At the same time, we recognize the opportunities of this scale are rare, and if structured responsibly, this could this one could have a transformational impact on our community. And we look forward to today's discussion and to continuing to work with the board as this process moves forward. And finally, I would like to recognize many people who have been part of this process.
openpublica.com